UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORI^HA 
LOS  ANGELES 


%u\u^ 


rhe  Great  Issues 


WHARTON  BARKER 


',,hvr  '►,'•> -i 


■■  V  f  •■  .iB^t,  ,  ■    'V..,.  - 


iTxLIDPvl.S 


tmc^* 


mAi 


tn 


The  Great  Issues 


REPRINTS  OF  SOME   EDITORIALS 

FROM 

THE   AMERICAN 

1  897-1  900 


WHARTON    BARKER 

EDITOR  AND  PUBLISHER 


No.     119    SOFTir     FOURTH    STREET 
1  902 


COPYRWHT,   1902,    BY  WhaKTON  BaRKEB. 


B' 


CONTENTS. 


rXGB 

The  Defence  and  Defenders  of  Human  Rights      .       .  5 

The  Initiative  and  Referendum            7 

Our  Constitution— Bulwark  of  the  Oppressor  not  ok 

THE  Oppressed 18 

Railroad  as   the  Master — Man  as  the  Servant     .        .  32 

Otr    Railroads    as    Oppressors    of    the    Honest    and 

Servitors  ok  the  Unscrupulous 38 

Nationalize  the  Railroads  or  Pauperize  the  Nation  52 

Railroad  JIoxopoly 59 

Discriminating  against  Home  Industries    ....  70 

An  Allegory 83 

The  Alchemist's  Dream 98 

Our  Day  of  Sorrow 108 

Shall  Money  Rule  or  Money  Serve?         .       .       .       .121 

Money  and  Populism 132 

The  Growth  and  Evils  of  Trusts 142 

Anti-Trust  Amendment   to   the    Dingley   Tariff, 

SuggEvSted  by  Wharton  Barker 150 

Mammon  in  the  Pulpit,  Christianity  Outcast         .  152 

The  Church  and  Populism 162 

Christmas  Thoughts           170 

Populism  and  the  Gospel  of  Peace 177 

What  We  Stand  for           180 


«3  <^t^)^y  /•  ^ 


4  CONTENTS. 

Our  Platform 193 

Letter  of  Acceptance 208 

Taxing  the  Poor,  Exempting  the  Rich      .       .       .        .225 

Constitutionality  ok  the  Income  Tax         ....  245 

The  Courts  Inciting  to  Riot 276 

Are  the  Rights  of  ('apital  Superior  to  the  Rights 

OF  Man? 289 

Organized    Labor's    Crisis— A    Supreme    Danger   and 

Supreme  Opportunity 301 

Plutocracy  vs.    The  People           312 

The  Laborer  and  His  Hire 326 

Our  Canadian  Relations 348 

Our  South  American  Trade 362 

Territorial  vs.    Trade  Expansion 379 


THE  DEFENCT^:  AND  DEFENDERS  OF  HUMAN 
EIGHTS.  j 

[May  29th,  1897.] 

AKl']  human  riglits,  liberty,  to  be  crushed  to  earth, 
that  property  rights,  a  moneyed  oligarchy,  may 
bo  enthroned?  This  is  the  all-important  ques- 
tion before  the  American  people,  into  which  all  others 
are  resohed,  a  question  often,  too  often,  lost  sight  of 
m  consideration  of  detail,  but  which,  ever  present,  can- 
not safely  bo  ignored.  To  do  so  is  to  open  the  way  to 
the  enslavement  of  our  industrial  classes,  the  under- 
mining of  the  Republic  and  the  building  up  of  an 
oligarchy. 

A  generation  ago,  the  nation,  in  bloody  strife,  over- 
threw one  oligarchy,  the  slave-holding  oligarchy  of  the 
South,  an  oligarchy  as  detrimental  to  master  as  to 
slave.  At  the  same  time  the  seeds  of  a  new  and  more 
far-reaching  oligarchy  were  sown.  The  War  called  into 
being  a  new  class.  It  made  the  ojiportunity  for  a  class 
caring  less  for  country  than  for  self,  caring  naught  for 
the  sufferings  of  humanity,  weighing  not  injustice  where 
their  pockets  were  concerned,  caring  more  for  the  dic- 
tates of  Mammon  than  the  toachiugs  of  the  Saviour  of 
man,  to  exalt  themselves  in  riches,  in  power,  in  the  eyes 
of  man  but  not  of  fJod,  upon  the  sacrifices  of  their 
fellow-men.  The  sacrifices  cheerfully  made  by  our 
]ioople  to  overthrow  the  oligarchy  of  slavery,  to  free 
the  black  slave  from  bondage;  the  cheerful  offering  up 
of  life  and  property  on  the  altar  of  human  rights,  the 


6  TJIK    (il{i;AT    ISSL'KS. 

unmurniuriDg  payiuont  ol'  burdcnijome  taxes,  gave  evi- 
dence of  the  highest  of  patriotism.  But  there  were 
men  in  the  North  who  saw  in  the  war  only  a  source  of 
profit,  men  who  made  no  voluntary  sacrifice,  who 
offered  neither  life  nor  property  in  defence  of  their 
country,  who  protested  against  bearing  their  share  of 
taxation  and  schemed  to  throw  the  whole  expense  of 
the  war,  an  expense  that  they  schemed  to  double  or 
treble,  upon  those  least  able  to  bear  it,  upon  those 
fighting  the  nation's  battles,  filling  the  nation's  purse. 
These  men  were  the  money-lenders,  men  without  sym- 
pathy for  man  or  country.  And  as  the  sacrifices  made 
hy  our  people  were  worthy  of  the  highest  patriotism, 
the  contemptible  effort  of  these  men  to  profit  from 
such  sacrifices,  to  take  advantage  of  a  people  in  the 
hour  of  their  direst  need,  was  the  foulest  of  treason. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  EEFEEENDUM. 

[October  16th,  1897.] 

WHY  there  should  be  any  opposition  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  Direct  Legislation  it  is  hard  to 
understand.  In  truth,  there  is  no  open  op- 
po^^ition  of  any  account,  for  it  would  take  a  courage 
that  is  not  possessed  by  the  average  politician  to  get 
up  on  the  stump  and  tell  our  people  that  they  are  not 
fitted  to  govern  themselves;  that  they  are  not  capable 
of  discerning  between  good  laws  and  bad  laws;  that 
they  must  delegate  to  politicians  the  art  of  governing. 
The  stump  speaker  who  made  such  assertions  would 
not  be  a  vote  winner,  and,  needless  to  say,  the  oppon- 
ents of  direct  legislation  do  not  want  such  speakers  on 
the  stump.  It  would  not  be  politic  to  employ  such 
speakers,  and  they  are  not  employed. 

So  we  do  not  find  avowed  opposition  to  direct  legis- 
lation on  the  stump.  Nor  do  we  find  frank  opposition 
in  the  slavish  metropolitan  press,  controlled  by  those 
who  purpose  that  our  people  should  be  governed  for 
the  profit  of  the  few  and  the  enslavement  of  the  many. 
Discussion  of  the  principles  of  direct  legislation  is 
shunned,  for  more  is  to  be  gained  by  silence  than  dis- 
cussion. Sometimes  it  is  wiser  to  hide  purposes  than 
to  avow  them.  It  is  ever  wiser  when  the  purposes 
aimed  at  are  conceived  for  the  profit  of  the  few  to  the 
detriment  of  the  many,  and  when  the  many  must  be 
appealed  to  in  order  to  carry  such  purposes  into  effect. 
In  order  that  the  masses  of  our  people  may  be  gov- 
erned for  the  benefit  of  t1i(>  few,  it  is  necessary  that 
the  many  have  no  direct  liaiul  in  their  own  governing. 


8  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

It  is  necessary  that  the  many  delegate  to  representa- 
tives the  art  of  governing,  and  that  such  representa- 
tives should  be  influenced  so  as  to  become  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  few,  in  order  that  governing  may  be 
carried  on  for  the  advantage  of  rulers,  not  of  ruled, 
for  it  is  folly  to  suppose  that  men,  directly  governing 
themselves,  would  govern  themselves  knowingly  to 
their  own  detriment  and  the  profit  of  others. 

So  the  opposition  to  direct  legislation  among  those 
who  design  to  make  of  our  government  an  instrument 
for  the  oppression  of  the  many  and  the  enrichment  of 
the  few  is  an  opposition  that  is  covert,  for  to  avow  it 
would  be  to  make  it  ineffective.  In  order  to  promote 
the  governing  of  our  people  by  the  few  and  for  the  few, 
promote  legislation  that  will  impoverish  and  weaken 
the  many  but  aggrandize  the  few  in  riches  and  power, 
it  is  necessary  that  law-making  should  be  entrusted  to 
representatives,  that  those  representatives  should  be 
put  more  and  more  out  of  touch  with  the  people  and 
more  in  touch  with  the  few,  that  those  representatives 
should  be  removed  further  and  further  from  responsi- 
bility to  the  people,  that  their  doings  should  be  hidden 
and  not  subject  to  review.  So  we  have  demand  for 
extended  tenure  of  office,  we  have  opposition  to  the  se- 
lection of  Senators  by  popular  vote,  we  have  opposi- 
tion to  the  selection  of  Judges  other  than  by  appoint- 
ment, we  have  above  all  opposition  to  the  referendum 
which  would  make  all  laws  passed  by  legislative  bodies 
subject  to  review  and  reversal  by  a  higher  court,  the 
court  of  the  whole  people  entering  verdict  through  the 
ballot  box. 

It  is  true  our  people  have  in  an  indirect  way  the 
power  to  reverse  the  acts  of  their  representatives  by 
turning  down  such  representatives  when  they  come  up 
for  re-election  and  selecting  new  men,  pledged  to  undo 
the    obnoxious    acts      But  the  tendency  is  to  circum- 


THE    I.VITIATIVE    AND    REFERENDUM.  9 

scribe  tliis  power,  to  put  it  beyond  the  power  of  the 
people  to  condemn  distasteful  acts  of  their  representa- 
tives while  approving  satisfactory  acts.  In  the  nature 
of  things  the  distasteful  must  be  condoned  if  the  satis- 
factory acts  are  to  be  approved,  or,  vice  versa,  if  the 
distasteful  are  to  be  condemned  so  must  be  the  satis- 
factory, liepresentatives  must  be  turned  down  when 
they  seek  re-election  or  they  must  be  returned.  If  they 
are  returned  their  faults  arc  overlooked,  there  can  be 
no  pledge  that  the  obnoxious  legislation  that  they 
passed  will  be  repealed,  indeed  a  certainty  that  they 
will  not  repeal  their  own  acts.  And  if  they  are  defeated 
it  is  likely  that  their  good  works  will  suffer  a  tearing 
down  at  the  hands  of  their  successors  along  with  the 
bad. 

Moreover,  in  campaigns  for  re-election  some  one  act 
of  legislation,  some  one  issue  will  inevitably  overtop 
others  and  the  contest  will  be  decided  on  that  issue. 
So  it  happens  that  the  people  have  the  opportunity  to 
pass  judgment  on  that  one  act,  that  the  opportunity  of 
passing  upon  other  acts,  of  reversing  such  minor  acts 
as  are  not  conceived  in  their  interest,  is  closed  to  them. 
So  the  need  of  entrusting  our  people  with  direct  power 
to  reverse  the  acts  of  their  representatives,  of  referring 
to  the  people,  for  final  judgment,  all  acts  of  legislative 
bodies  where  such  reference  is  demanded  by  any  con- 
siderable body  of  voters.  In  no  other  way  can  the  peo- 
ple exercise  effective  control  over  legislation,  protect 
themselves  against  legislation  conceived  for  the  benefit 
of  the  few  and  the  injury  of  the  many,  and  keep  a 
direct  hand  in  their  own  governing  that  will  enable 
them  to  effectively  prevent  the  directing  of  govern- 
ment in  the  interest  of  the  few. 

"We  have  said  that  there  is  little  outward  oppOvsition 
to  the  principles  of  direct  legislation.  That  there  is 
much  covert  opposition,  and  for  reasons  we  have  seen, 


10  THE    (JKKAT    ISSUES. 

is  undoubted.  There  is,  too,  a  placid  opposition,  born 
of  ignorance.  It  is  this  opposition  that  the  only  true 
opponents  of  direct  legislation  bend  their  efforts  to 
build  up.  They  build  it  up  by  keeping  silence,  now 
and  then  entering  a  wedge  of  ridicule  and  misrepre- 
sentation. Thus  an  unthinking  opposition  has  been 
built  up  to  direct  legislation.  We  find  men  dreading 
the  very  words  initiative  and  referendum.  If  they  un- 
derstood the  meaning  of  such  words  they  could  not 
dread  them,  unless,  indeed,  they  would  dread  the  right 
of  governing  themselves,  dread  the  circumscribing  of 
the  powers  of  politicians  to  direct  the  government  so 
that  the  people  might  have  a  direct  voice  in  their  own 
governing,  for  this  is  what  direct  legislation  means. 

We  do  not  want  to  be  harsh,  but  he  who,  under- 
standing, opposes  direct  legislation  is  no  better  than  a 
monarchist,  for  he  holds  that  the  people  are  not  fitted 
to  govern  themselves,  that  the  few  are  fitted  by  divine 
law  to  rul-e;  that  the  many  are  condemned  to  be  ruled 
for  the  benefit  of  the  few  by  a  law  equally  divine.  This 
is  the  law  of  kings;  it  is  not  the  law  of  democracy.  It 
does  not  breathe  the  spirit  of  our  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence; he  who  holds  it  is  false  to  our  theory  of  gov- 
ernment, a  worthy  monarchist,  but  an  unworthy  re- 
publican. 

The  United  States  was  the  first  great  republic 
founded  on  representative  government.  It  was  the 
first  great  attempt  of  a  people  to  rule  themselves 
through  representatives.  It  was  in  a  manner  an  ex- 
periment. There  had  been,  indeed,  republics,  but  they 
were  not  such  as  a  great  republic,  covering  a  vast  ter- 
ritory, could  be  fashioned  after.  In  ancient  Greece 
there  were  republics,  but  the  Grecian  republics  were 
not  representative  governments.  The  suffrage  in 
those  republics,  the  citizenship,  was  limited,  so  limited, 
indeed,  as  to,  in  some  cases,  constitute  almost  an  oli- 


THE    INITIATIVE    AND    REFERENDUM.  11 

garchy.  But  those  who  were  citizeu.s  and  lorded  it 
over  their  numerous  slaves  did  not  delegate  the  art  of 
governing  to  anyone.  Every  man  entitled  to  the  rights 
of  citizenship  took,  or  could  take,  direct  part  in  govern- 
ing, in  the  making  of  laws.  The  laws,  the  policies  of 
the  republics  were  voted  by  the  whole  people,  the  right 
of  making  laws  was  not  delegated  to  representatives. 
Then  there  was  government  by  the  people  and  for  the 
people,  that  is,  the  people  who  were  not  slaves  and  who 
did  not  count;  the  citizens,  and  every  citizen,  had  a 
voice  in  the  making  of  every  law;  then  only  such  laws 
were  enacted  as  a  majority  of  the  people  desired,  then 
no  act  not  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  citizens  stood 
a  chance  of  adoption.  Barring  the  disfranchisement 
of  many  men,  the  holding  of  many  men  as  slaves, 
driven  to  toil  for  the  profit  of  the  few,  those  were  ideal 
republics.     The  people  governed  themselves. 

But  such  republics  were  small.  It  was  possible  for 
all  the  citizens  to  meet  in  assembly  and  discuss  the 
public  weal.  On  the  larger  theatre  of  the  American 
continent  this  was  impossible.  So  our  fathers  could 
not  copy  after  such  republics,  such  republics  could  not 
be  followed  after  in  the  making  of  our  national  con- 
stitution. So  the  representative  form  of  government 
was  followed  of  necessity  in  the  making  of  our  Nation 
as  it  had  been  followed  by  the  l)uilders  of  the  thirteen 
(olonies.  The  form  of  government  was  not  as  repre- 
sentative as  it  could  have  been  made,  it  was  not  as 
representative  as  it  has  since  become.  In  the  begin- 
ning of  our  federal  government  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives was  the  only  branch  of  the  government  di- 
rectly representative  of  the  people.  The  government 
was  divided  into  three  branches,  legislative,  executive 
and  judicial,  and  only  one-half  of  the  first  branch  was 
directly  responsible  to  the  people.  The  other  half  of 
the  legislative  branch,  the  Senate,  was  chosen  by  the 


12  THE   GKEAT   ISSUES. 

State  legislatures;  the  executive,  the  President,  was 
chosen  hy  electors  chosen  in  greater  part  by  the  State 
legislatures;  the  judges  were  selected  by  and  responsible 
to  the  executive.  Gradually  the  choosing  of  the 
President  through  the  medium  of  electors  fell  into  a 
mere  form,  though  several  States,  down  to  the  war. 
South  C'arolina  even  since  the  war,  chose  presidential 
electors  not  by  popular  vote,  but  by  vote  of  their  legis- 
latures. But  now  the  President  is  practically  voted 
for  directly  by  the  people  of  all  the  States,  and  South 
Carolina,  long  backward,  has  gone  in  advance  of  her 
sisters,  and  now  practically  chooses  her  United  States 
Senators  by  popular  vote,  the  legislature  being  re- 
quired to  register  the  verdict  of  the  people  by  electing 
to  the  Senate  the  man  picked  out  by  the  vote  of  the 
people.  But  in  the  rest  of  our  States  Senators  are  still 
chosen  at  second  hand,  not  by  the  vote  of  the  people, 
but  by  the  State  legislatures. 

So  for  a  time  the  tendency  has  been  to  make  our 
form  of  government  more  representative,  to  bring  our 
representatives  into  closer  touch  with  the  people,  that 
they  might  more  closely  register  the  people's  wishes. 
But  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  powerful  opposi- 
tion to  further  change  in  this  direction,  an  opposition 
coming  from  men  who  design  that  the  country  should 
be  governed  for  their  self-interest,  and  who  know  that 
the  further  representatives  may  be  removed  from  the 
people  the  easier  it  must  be  to  control  them,  and  nat- 
urally such  men  are  opposed  to  direct  legislation 
by  the  people,  for  they  cannot  hope  to  direct 
government  in  the  interest  of  the  few  when  the 
many  do  their  own  governing.  To  influence  repre- 
sentatives to  sacrifice  the  interests  of  their  constituents 
is  possible,  to  influence  governed  to  sacrifice  their  own 
interests  when  governing  themselves  is  next  to  im- 
possible.      It  must,  indeed,  ever  be  possible  to  blind 


THE    INITIATIVE    AND    liEFEEENDUM.  13 

men  to  their  true  interests  for  a  time  and  so  prevail 
upon  them,  even  when  governing  themselves,  to  sacri- 
lice  their  interests,  but  they  cannot  l)e  inilueneed  to 
do  so  knowingly,  or  prevented,, if  they  had  the  power 
of  direct  legislation,  from  undoing  an  injury  unwitting- 
ly done  themselves. 

In  the  small  towns  of  Xew  England  we  see  the  peo- 
ple governing  themselves  in  local  matters,  passing  their 
own  local  laws,  voting  their  own  local  improvements, 
voting  taxes  and  the  expenditure  of  money.  All  this 
they  do  in  town  meeting,  and  not  through  representa- 
tives. Thus  we  have  the  people  deciding  for  them- 
selves what  is  good  for  them  in  matters  of  local  govern- 
ment and  what  is  not,  and  not  delegating  this  decision 
to  representatives.  And  now  we  ask,  Are  the  liberties 
of  those  people  threatened,  are  their  affairs  misman- 
aged because  they  manage  them  themselves?  If  not, 
direct  legislation  ap])lied  to  the  government  of  the 
nation  could  not  be  sul)versive  of  good  government. 

No  one  who  believes  the  people  are  fitted  to  govern 
themselves,  capable  of  discerning  what  laws  are  good 
and  what  bad,  can  honestly  oppose  direct  legislation, 
which  means  nothing  less  than  government  by  and  for 
the  people.  It  is  obvious  that  in  the  broad  sphere  of 
the  nation  we  cannot  have  direct  legislation  as  it  is  had 
in  the  New  England  towns.  The  people  of  the  Ignited 
States  cannot  meet  in  town  meeting  to  discuss  and 
then  decide  on  the  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  the  nation. 
So  they  must  delegate  representatives  to  meet  where 
the  whole  people  cannot  meet,  to  act  when  there  is  not 
time  for  the  whole  people  to  act.  But  the  whole  peo- 
ple can  discuss  together  the  affairs  of  the  nation  even 
if  they  cannot  meet  together,  for  the  telegraph  brings 
them  together  in  point  of  time  and  thought,  and  just 
as  they  can  intelligently  discuss  the  affairs  of  the  na- 
tion even  as  they  could  if  meeting  together,  so  they  are 


14  THE    UKEAT    ISSUES. 

fitted  to  decide  what  will  promote,  what  retard,  the 
weal  of  the  whole  country.  And  so  fitted,  they  are 
fitted  to  have  the  right  to  directly  supervise  the  acts 
of  their  representatives,  to  veto  any  act  passed  by  their 
legislators  that  they  dislike,  to  enact  any  law  over  the 
heads  of  their  representatives  that  their  representa- 
tives, influenced  by  the  rich  and  powerful,  refuse  to 
enact  in  response  to  popular  demand. 

And  these  rights  are  not  fully  conserved  through 
representative  government,  for  representatives,  as  all 
men,  are  amenable  to  influences  at  the  command  of 
wealth  and  might,  and  when  separated  from  their  con- 
stituents are  prone  to  put  the  demands  of  their  new 
surroundings  ahead  of  the  rights  of  those  whom  they 
ought  to  represent,  are  prone  to  succumb  to  the  bland- 
ishments of  surroundings  and  become  the  representa- 
tives of  the  moneyed  interests  rather  than  of  the  in- 
terests of  the  people.  So  comes  the  question:  How 
to  conserve  to  the  people  their  rights  to  reverse  the 
acts  of  their  representatives  or  pass  acts  over  the  heads 
of  their  representatives,  and  so  preserve  the  right  of 
governing  themselves?  The  answer  is  direct  legisla- 
tion. But  how  in  a  great  country,  where  men  cannot 
meet  together,  discuss  and  act  together  face  to  face, 
can  we  have  direct  legislation?  The  answer  is  through 
the  initiative  and  referendum.  And  what  is  the 
meaning  of  these  words  that  should  be  familiar  to 
everyone,  but  are  not  because  the  public  press,  con- 
trolled by  a  moneyed  oligarchy,  takes  pains  to  hide 
their  meaning,  for  familiarity  with  the  terms  would 
mean  adoption  of  the  principles? 

The  referendum  is  not  novel.  V\^e  have  it  in  prac- 
tice. We  only  need  to  extend  it  and  systematize  it  so 
that  the  people  may  call  it  into  operation  to  veto  any 
obnoxious  law.  Referendum  means  simply  referring 
to  the  people  for  final  judgment.     The  national  Con- 


THE    INITIATIVE    AXD    REFERENDUM.  15 

stitution,  nearly  all  our  State  constitutions  were  re- 
ferred to  the  people  for  approval  or  rejection,  and  be- 
ing approved  by  popular  vote  they  have  greater  force 
than  mere  statute  laws,  they  have  the  force  of  the  ref- 
erendum. And,  as  it  was  with  the  original  drafts  of 
the  constitutions,  amendments  are  subject  to  the  ref- 
erendum, only  have  the  force  of  law  after  the  approval 
of  popular  vote. 

So,  also,  do  we  often  refer  to  the  people  questions  of 
increased  indebtedness.  We  are  to  have  a  referendum 
in  Philadelphia  upon  the  question  of  an  increase  of 
public  debt  at  the  coming  election.  Select  Council  has 
also  voted  to  refer  the  proposition  to  lease  the  city  gas 
works  to  the  people.     This  again  is  the  referendum. 

We  repeat,  the  referendum  is  not  novel  in  our  gov- 
ernment. The  trouble  is  that  it  is  alone  possible  for 
politicians  to  appeal  to  it,  that  the  people  cannot.  To 
put  it  in  the  power  of  the  people  to  appeal  to  the 
referendum,  and  so  reverse  obnoxious  laws  of  legisla- 
tive bodies,  is  the  present  need.  And  how  can  this  be 
done,  how  is  it  proposed  that  it  should  be  done?  Sim- 
ply that  the  right  be  conferred  upon  any  considerable 
body  of  voters,  say  5  per  cent,  of  the  body  of  registered 
voters,  to  demand  by  petition  the  submission  of  any  act 
of  legislation  to  popular  vote,  such  act  to  fall  unless 
upon  the  popular  vote  so  demanded,  a  majority  voting 
approve  it.  Thus  it  would  be  put  in  the  power  of  the 
people  to  reject  obnoxious  laws,  be  impossible  for  con- 
scienceless city  councilmen,  or  State  legislators — aye, 
national  Congressmen — to  sacrifice  the  interests  of  the 
people  despite  protest. 

And  now  as  to  the  initiative:  how  could  this  be 
worked?  We  are  told  it  is  impossible  for  the  people  to 
frame  their  own  laws,  that  they  must  employ  skilled 
law  makers.  But  suppose  this  is  so,  how  does  it  inter- 
fere with  the  principle  of  the  initiative  in  legislation? 


16  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

The  people  desiring  legishition  that  th(nr  roprosenta- 
tives  refused  to  enact,  would,  under  the  initiative, 
frame  the  act  desired;  it  would  be  the  work  of  skilled 
not  unskilled  hands,  hands  employed  if  necessary,  and 
it  would  be  required  that  upon  petition  of  a  certain 
recognized  number  of  voters,  the  act  so  framed  should 
be  submitted  to  a  popular  vote.  If  approved,  it  would 
become  the  law  of  the  land,  a  law  that  could  only  be  re- 
pealed as  it  was  enacted,  namely,  by  popular  vote.  Of 
course,  the  repeal  of  laws  already  on  our  statute  books 
could  be  accomplished  in  the  same  way  and  thus  the 
people  be  given  control  over  their  own  law  making. 

Such  is  the  initiative  and  referendum.  It  should  be 
applied  to  states  and  nation  alike.  The  adoption  of 
the  system  would  not  require  of  necessity  constitu- 
tional amendments,  federal  or  state,  though  adoption 
by  constitutional  amendment  would  be  best.  Consti- 
tutional requirements  could  be  gotten  over  by  keep- 
ing to  the  form,  as  South  Carolina  has  gotten  over 
constitutional  requirements  prescribing  the  election  of 
Senators  of  the  United  States  by  the  legislatures  of  the 
states.  And  so  could  the  initiative  and  referendum  be 
put  in  practical  operation  in  the  nation  by  Congress 
passing  a  resolution  pledging  itself  to  pass  all 
laws  subject  to  popular  approval  at  the  ballot 
box,  and  to  submit  to  a  popular  vote  any  leg- 
islation initiated  by  the  people  and  abide  by 
the  popular  vote  on  such  legislation  by  enact- 
ing into  law  any  act  thus  receiving  popular  approval. 
But  such  act  of  Congress  giving  practical  effect  to  the 
initiative  and  referendum  w^ould  only  have  a  moral 
force  on  Congressmen.  It  would  ever  be  in  their 
power  to  repeal  such  law.  Congressnien  wishing  it? 
repeal  would  only  be  held  to  it  by  inability  to  muster 
suflRcient  courage  to  meet  a  storm  of  popular  disappro- 
bation.      Therefore  the  preference  for  constitutional 


THE    INITIATIVE    AND    REFERENDUM.  17 

nraendmont  in  putting  into  effect  the  initiative  and 
referendum. 

In  conclusion,  we  have  but  to  repeat  that  direct  leg- 
islation must  come,  for  only  an  understanding  of  what 
is  meant  by  initiative  and  referendum  is  needed  to  win 
approval  from  all  but  monarchists.  Those  who  believe 
in  government  of,  by  and  for  the  people,  who  believe 
that  the  people  are  fitted  to  govern  themselves,  capable 
of  discerning  that  which  is  good  for  them  and  that 
which  is  not,  must  approve. 


OUK  CONSTITUTION— BULWARK  OF  THE 
OPPRESSOE  NOT  OF  THE  OPPEESSED. 

[November  19th,  1898.] 

AS  set  forth  in  the  preamble  to  our  National  Con- 
stitution, that  instrument  was  framed  to  the 
end  that  the  people  of  the  United  States,  hy 
forming  a  more  perfect  union,  might  better  provide  for 
their  general  welfare  and  preserve  to  themselves  and 
their  posterity  the  blessings  of  liberty.  With  such 
high  aim,  as  a  solemn  compact  between  the  people  of 
the  States  that  had  just  won  their  independence  of 
Great  Britain  to  preserve  their  dearly  won  liberties,  as 
the  bulwark  of  the  oppressed,  the  Constitution  was 
framed.  But  to  give  to  that  pledge  mutually  made 
between  the  States  to  secure  and  preserve  to  one  an- 
other their  independence  and  to  their  inhabitants  their 
liberties,  the  enjoyment  of  the  inalienable  rights  of 
man  as  proclaimed  in  our  Declaration  of  Independence 
— to  give  to  that  pledge  a  greater  sacredness  than 
could  be  given  by  the  act  of  any  men  exercising  merely 
delegated  power,  and  because  of  such  power  undertak- 
ing to  speak  and  act  for  the  people  of  their  States  and 
form  a  compact  binding  upon  such  people,  the  Consti- 
tution, framed  by  the  convention  that  met  in  Philadel- 
phia in  the  summer  of  1787,  was  referred  to  the  people 
of  the  different  States  to  become  operative  only  when 
ratified  by  them,  so  that  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion should  be  the  act  of  the  people,  not  merely  of  their 
delegates,  so  that  this  solemn  compact  when  made 
should  be  approved  by  the  people  and  not  merely  ap- 
proved on  their  behalf  by  their  representatives.    True, 


OUR    CONSTITUTION.  19 

the  Constitution  was  not  nominally  directly  voted  upon 
by  the  people.  But  practically  it  was.  Thus,  under  the 
manner  of  procedure  laid  down  by  the  constitutional 
convention  the  States  called  conventions  of  their  own 
to  decide  upon  the  question  of  ratification.  And  in  elect- 
ing delegates  to  such  conventions,  in  choosing  between 
men  pledged  to  vote  for  ratification  and  men  pledged 
to  oppose,  the  people  were  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
offered  the  opportunity  of  voting  for  or  against  rati- 
fication. 

Being  thus  adopted  the  Constitution  became  funda- 
mental law,  and  where  any  law  passed  by  Congress 
clashes  with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  such  law 
falls,  for  where  there  is  a  clash,  an  act  passed  upon  and 
approved  by  the  people  must  be  held  as  more  nearly 
reflecting  the  views  of  the  people  than  an  act  passed 
by  their  representatives,  for  often  representatives 
misrepresent.  Thus  it  was  deemed  that  if  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  should  at  any  time  betray  the 
trust  reposed  in  them  and  for  self  gain  do  the  bidding 
of  the  oppressors  of  mankind,  that  the  Constitution 
would  be  the  bulwark  of  the  oppressed,  that  under  the 
constitutional  provisions  the  acts  of  the  faithless  legis- 
lators, legislators  faithless  to  the  interests  of  the  many, 
serving  the  interests  of  the  few,  sacrificing  the  inter- 
ests of  the  multitude,  making  the  welfare  of  the  peo- 
])le's  oppressors,  of  those  who,  imbued  with  monarchi- 
cal notions,  trample  upon  justice  and  equity  and  right, 
dearer  than  the  welfare  of  the  people,  would  be  de- 
clared null  and  void.  And  the  obligation  of  so  declar- 
ing was  reposed  in  a  Supreme  Court  created  in  a  way 
that  was  hoped  would  put  it  above  the  passions  of 
party,  and,  by  insuring  to  the  judges  life  tenure  of 
office  and  salaries  giving  them  ability  to  command  all 
the  material  comforts  that  a  Cod-fearing  man  and 
judge  should  want,  would  place  them  above  the  power 


20  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

oi"  the  tempter.  Indeed  the  careful  division  made  hy 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  between  the  powers 
conferred  upon  the  national  legislature,  executive  and 
judiciary,  was  made  solely  with  a  view  of  safeguarding 
the  interests  of  the  people,  their  rights,  their  liberties, 
and  the  checks  over  Congress  given  to  the  judiciary 
were  solely  aimed  to  prevent  a  Congress,  faithless  to 
the  people,  from  alienating  their  birthright,  sacrificing 
their  liberties,  enthroning  the  oppressors  of  the  multi- 
tude. 

Such  was  the  unquestionable  purpose  of  the  framers 
of  our  Constitution,  such  was  unquestionably  the  pur- 
pose of  the  people  of  the  United  States  when  they 
adopted  it  and  made  it  their  fundamental  law,  law  to 
preserve  to  themselves  and  their  posterity  the  blessings 
of  liberty,  law  that  no  faithless  Congress  could  undo. 
But  unfortunately  in  interpreting  the  Constitution  the 
Supreme  Court  has  not  always  borne  this  in  mind,  has 
forgotten  that  its  provisions  were  framed  with  a  view 
to  preserving  to  our  people  their  lil)ertios,  as  a  bulwark 
for  the  oppressed.  As  a  consequence  the  Constitution 
has  been  so  twisted  that  it  has  come  to  be  looked  upon 
as  a  bulwark  sheltering  those  who  encroach  upon  the 
liberties  of  our  people,  sheltering  the  few  who  are  ag- 
grandizing themselves  at  the  expense  of  the  multitude 
by  trampling  upon  the  rights  of  the  many,  rather  than 
as  a  bulwark  affording  protection  to  the  many  from 
such  encroachments.  And  so  is  the  word  of  the  Con- 
stitution more  often  appealed  to  for  the  protection  of 
special  privileges  than  for  the  upholding  of  equal  rights 
and  opportunities.  So  twisted  from  its  purpose  ha^^ 
the  Constitution  been  that  those  whose  rights  are 
trampled  upon,  whose  liberties  are  encroached  upon, 
look  not  to  that  revered  instrument  for  protection,  but 
rather  look  upon  it  as  a  hindrance  to  their  protecting: 
themselves.     To  preserve  the  liberties  of  our  people 


OUR   CONSTITUTION.  21 

was  the  Constitution  framed;  to  deny  such  liberties,  to 
deny  to  the  people  the  power  of  justly  taxing  them- 
selves, of  governing  themselves  according  to  the  rules 
of  justice  and  equity  and  so  as  to  best  promote  the 
general  welfare  and  preserve  to  themselves  and  their 
posterity  the  blessings  of  liberty,  do  we  find  it  used. 

Thus  a  serious  question  presents  itself.  We  see  the 
C'onstitution  used  to  destroy  our  liberties;  shall  we 
destroy  the  Constitution  or  restore  it  so  that  it  may  be 
made  the  bulwark  of  our  liberties?  And  to  destroy 
means  to  destroy  the  nation,  undo  the  work  of  our  fore- 
falhers,  who  sacrificed  so  much  to  build  a  nation  upon 
the  foundations  of  liberty,  a  nation  in  wliich  the  rule 
of  right,  not  of  might,  would  be  recognized,  a  nation 
in  which  men  might  enjoy  the  blessings  conferred  upon 
them  by  their  Creator  free  from  the  tainted  hands  of 
the  oppressors  of  mankind.  Therefore  we  must  re- 
store, make  sacrifices  to  restore  the  work  of  our  fore- 
fathers, carry  out  their  high  aims,  make  of  our  Con- 
stitution that  which  it  was  intended  to  be,  the  bulwark 
of  liberty. 

When  our  forefathers  made  the  Constitution  funda- 
mental law  they  had  a  lurking  fear  that  our  people 
would  at  times  let  their  passions  get  the  better  of  their 
judgment,  and  that  under  the  stress  of  such  passion 
they  would,  if  unrestrained,  do  things  that  they  would 
afterwards  much  regret.  So,  in  the  fear  that  the  peo- 
ple, in  moments  of  national  enthusiasm  and  passion, 
might  be  led  to  compromise  their  own  liberties,  the 
framers  of  our  Constitution,  though  not  denying  the 
right  of  the  people  and  their  posterity  to  change  the 
fundamental  law  and  govern  themselves  as  they  saw  fit, 
put  blocks  and  liindrances  in  the  way  of  changing  the 
fundamental  law  calculated  to  delay  the  making  of  any 
change  until  the  passions  might  cool  oflf  and  the  advisa- 
bility of  making  the  change  be  calmly  considered.     In 


32  THE    GREAT    ISSUES, 

short,  it  was  aimed  to  make  the  people  deliberate  long 
and  deep.  What  is  more,  so  fearful  were  our  forefath- 
ers that  we,  their  posterity,  might  compromise  our- 
selves that  they  made  it  impossible  to  change  the  fun- 
damental law  until  the  majority  of  the  people  in  three- 
fourths  of  the  States  should  be  convinced  of  the  desira- 
bility of  such  change.  And  in  thus  striving  to  keep 
their  posterity  in  leading-strings  even  after  they  were 
gone,  our  forefathers,  though  doubtless  impelled  by  an 
excess  of  parental  affection,  did  us  a  wrong. 

To  make  the  Constitution,  approved  by  the  people, 
superior  to  any  law  passed  by  Congress  on  behalf  of 
the  people,  and  to  declare  that  any  law  passed  by  Con- 
gress that  might  clash  with  such  fundamental  law 
should  be  considered  void,  was  eminently  proper,  for, 
as  we  have  said,  that  which  is  done  by  the  people  must 
be  considered  as  more  closely  reflecting  their  wishes 
than  that  which  is  done  by  their  representatives,  by 
Congress  on  their  behalf.  But  to  make  that  funda- 
mental law  difficult  of  change  was  a  wrong  which  is  not 
unlikely  to  cause  us  an  infinitude  of  trouble  in  the 
near  future. 

We  would  not  for  a  moment  advocate  the  giving  to 
Congress  of  the  right  to  disregard  the  fundamental 
law,  the  making  of  that  which  is  done  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  superior  to  that  which  is  done 
by  the  people  themselves.  For  surely  if  all  authority 
is  derived  from  the  people  the  nearer  we  approach  to 
the  fountain  source  in  the  making  of  laws  the  more 
sacred  must  those  laws  be  considered,  and  when  we 
take  laws  right  from  the  fountain  source,  most  sacred 
of  all,  and  hence  to  be  observed  above  all  others.  But 
that  which  the  people  have  done  they  have  the  right  to 
undo,  and  the  undoing  should  be  made  easy  for  them, 
not  difficult.  In  other  words,  the  changing  of  old  fun- 
damental law,  the  making  of  new,  of  law  unchangeable 


OUR    CONSTITUTION.  23 

by  Congrest-,  changeable  only  by  the  people  themselves 
should  be  made  easy.  Then  the  fundamental  law 
would  at  all  times  closely  reflect  the  views  of  the  peo- 
ple, then  it  would  be  eminently  just  to  consider  such 
law  directly  approved  by  the  people  as  superior  to  law 
approved  on  behalf  of  the  people  by  their  representa- 
tives, for  whatever  the  people  do  themselves  it  is 
proper  to  consider  they  desire  done,  but  it  is  not 
proper  to  conclude  that  the  people  desire  done  what- 
ever their  representatives  do  on  their  behalf,  for  the 
material  interests  of  representatives  are  often  other 
than  the  interests  of  the  people  who  choose  them.  And 
in  that  event  representatives  will  be  strongly  inclined 
to  serve  other  interests  than  those  they  are  chosen  to 
protect.  Moreover,  representatives  with  the  best  of 
intentions  may  misinterpret  the  wishes  of  those  who 
choose  them. 

But  when  the  fundamental  law  is  difficult  to  change 
it  may  well  happen  that  the  acts  of  Congress,  of  the 
people's  representatives,  may  much  more  closely  reflect 
the  wishes,  the  desires  of  the  people,  than  that  law. 
And  then  when  such  acts  of  Congress  come  in  conflict 
with  the  fundamental  law,  and  are  as  a  consequence 
declared  by  the  courts  of  the  land  to  be  null  and  void, 
that  fundamental  law  defeats  the  will  of  the  people. 
And  so  it  is  that  we  now  find  our  Constitution  used  to 
defeat  the  will  of  the  people,  used  to  destroy  their  lib- 
erties rather  than  preserve  them,  used  to  defeat  justice 
and  equality,  not  to  promote  them;  for  the  Constitu- 
tion, the  fundamental  law  of  the  land,  has  been  so  in- 
terpreted by  the  Supreme  Court  that  in  many  things 
it  is  not  just  law.  and  it  is  so  difficult  to  change  that 
the  people  are  hindered  from  making  it  just. 

But  the  people  can  restore  the  Constitution  so  that 
it  \nll  be  the  instrument  of  justice  and  equality  and 
liberty  as  it  was  of  old,  and  as  it  was  intended  to  be, 


34  THE    GKEAT    ISSUES. 

for  the  people  made  the  Constitution  and  what  the  peo- 
ple made  they  can  change.  True,  our  forefathers  in 
adopting  the  Constitution  so  tied  our  hands  by  con- 
stitutional restrictions  as  to  make  it  dillicult  to  change, 
make  it  necessary  to  convince  a  majority  of  the  people 
in  three-fourths  of  our  States  of  the  desirability  of  any 
change  before  such  change  can  be  made  by  constitu- 
tional means.  But  change  the  Constitution  our  peo- 
ple can,  and  in  one  respect  they  must  change  it  if  fun- 
damental law  is  not  going  to  fall  into  disrepute,  and  be 
regarded  as  the  law  of  monopoly  and  the  few,  not  the 
law  of  the  people,  as  it  is  in  theory  and  as  it  ought  to 
be  in  fact. 

This  change  is  to  make  it  easy  for  the  people  to 
change  and  make  fundamental  law,  make  laws  that  de- 
rived directly  from  the  fountain  source  of  all  law  as 
the  Constitution — namely,  the  people — shall  be  equal 
to  the  Constitution  and  cannot  be  held  unconstitu- 
tional and  so  rendered  void.  Give  this  right  to  the 
people  that  they  can  make  their  voice  heeded,  that  the 
voice  of  the  people  may  take  precedence  over  all 
statute  law  and  their  will  be  done,  and  then  fundamen- 
tal law  will  be  respected  above  all  other,  for  that  law 
will  honestly  reflect  the  people's  will.  To  effect  this 
we  have  simply  to  provide  that  the  people  shall  have 
the  right  to  vote  on  any  laws  passed  by  Congress  that 
there  may  be  a  desire  to  have  put  to  popular  vote  as 
shown  by  petition  of  a  small  but  respectable  percentage 
of  electors,  and  that  the  people  shall  further  have  the 
right  to  propose  laws  by  petition  to  be  voted  upon  and 
that  laws  so  referred  to  the  people,  and  approved  by 
them,  whether  initiated  by  Congress  or  initiated  by  the 
people,  shall  not  be  declared  void  by  the  Supreme 
Court  as  unconstitutional,  for  such  laws  being  ap- 
proved directly  by  the  people,  and  equal  in  source  to 
the  Constitution  itself,  of  right  ought  to  be  considered 


OUR    CONSTITUTION.  25 

fundamental  laws  subject  to  revision  by  no  power  save 
the  power  that  gave  them  birth — the  people.  This 
done  and  no  longer  could  the  cry  be  raised  that  this 
thing  and  that  cannot  be  done  because  unconstitu- 
tional^ for  that  which  the  people  really  desired  they 
could  make  constitutional  without  material  trouble  or 
delay. 

We  now  meet  in  Congress  opposition  to  measures, 
conducive  to  the  general  welfare  on  the  ground  that 
such  measures  are  not  constitutional.  Thus  do  Con- 
gressmen wrap  around  themselves  the  folds  of  the  Con- 
stitution in  opposing  measures  of  obvious  justice  and 
equity.  It  is  proposed  to  distribiite  the  taxes  equitably 
and  so  that  they  will  fall  with  like  burden  upon  the 
dollars  of  all  men,  so  that  the  dollars  of  the  rich  shall 
be  taxed  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  dollars  of  our 
poorer  citizens,  and  we  are  met  with  opposition  on  the 
ground  that  such  proposals  are  unconstitutional.  Thus 
in  the  present  Congress  have  we  seen  income  tax  and 
tax  on  the  gross  earnings  of  corporations  successfully 
opposed,  thus  have  we  seen  inheritance  tax  opposed,  but 
without  avail.  Thus  is  it  ever  when  it  is  proposed  to 
release  the  poorer  of  our  citizens  from  the  unjust  bur- 
den of  taxation  resting  upon  them  by  taxing  the 
wealthier  according  to  their  equitable  share;  thus  is  it 
ever  when  it  is  proposed  to  take  away  the  special  privi- 
leges that  are  at  the  foundation  of  great  fortunes, 
when  it  is  proposed  to  protect  the  masses  of  the  peo- 
ple against  the  exactions  and  encroachments  of  the 
moneyed  cliques. 

Ever  are  we  met  with  the  objection  that  measures 
conceived  in  the  interest  of  the  masses,  urged  in  the 
name  of  equity  and  justice,  are  unconstitutional.  We 
hoard  such  objections  to  the  issue  of  green])acks  during 
the  war  of  1861-G5  and  after.  The  Supreme  Court 
overthrew  such   objections,   but   we   may   hoar   them 


2G  TllK    (IllEAT    ISSUES, 

again,  and  tlie  court  may  reverse  its  position  as  it  did 
on  the  income  tax  question  and  sustain  such  objections. 
So  have  we  licard  a  system  of  just  taxation — a  system 
conceived,  imperfectly,  it  is  true,  on  the  principle  of 
taxing  the  dolhir  and  not  the  man — objected  to  as  un- 
constitutional, and  though  such  objection  was  once  set 
aside  later  sustained.  So  also  may  we  expect  objec- 
tions to  be  raised  to  the  government  taking  over  our 
railroads,  to  the  end  that  discrimination  may  cease  and 
equality  of  opportunity  be  restored;  so  may  we  expect 
objections  to  be  raised  to  everything  conceived  with 
the  view  of  taking  away  from  the  favored  few  special 
privileges  and  restoring  an  equality  of  opportunity  to 
all  men. 

A  measure  of  obvious  justice  is  now  proposed  in 
Congress,  and  meets  with  opposition.  Such  a  law,  it  is 
urged,  ought  to  Ijc  passed,  that  it  would  be  conducive 
to  the  general  welfare,  that  it  would  benefit  the 
people.  And  the  rejoinder  is,  "  Oh,  it  is  unconstitu- 
tional, and  we  cannot  do  it."  The  law  may  Ijc  con- 
ceived, indeed,  to  promote  the  very  things  that  the 
Constitution  was  framed  to  secure  to  our  people,  may 
be  aimed  as  was  our  Constitution  to  promote  the  gen- 
eral welfare  and  preserve  the  blessings  of  liberty,  but 
still  it  is  declared  that  it  would  be  unconstitutional — 
so  twisted  from  its  sound  bearings  has  been  our  Con- 
stitution. 

How  it  would  silence  such  objectors  if  the  advocates 
of  such  measures  of  justice  and  equity  could  arise  in 
their  seats  in  Congress,  and  say  that  inasmuch  as  the 
question  of  constitutionality  had  been  raised  they 
would  put  such  legislation  on  a  different  basis,  pass  it 
with  the  proviso  that  it  should  be  referred  to  the  peo- 
ple to  become  operative  only  when  ratified  by  them, 
that  if  approved  liy  the  people  it  would  become  law  as 
part  of  the  fundamental  law  of  the  nation,  and  thereby 


OUR    CONSTITUTION.  27 

nil  questions  of  its  constitutionality  be  set  at  rest. 
True,  those  who  object  to  measures  ou  the  ground  of 
unconstitutionality  are  invariably  opposed  to  such 
measures  on  principle.  It  is  not  that  they  believe 
them  unconstitutional  that  they  oppose,  but  because 
they  dislike  them  on  the  ground  of  being  antagonistic 
to  the  class  Interests  that  they  have  chosen  to  serve, 
and  they  simply  raise  the  question  of  constitutionality 
as  a  convenient  base  from  which  to  make  opposition 
without  disclosing  themselves  in  all  their  nakedness  as 
the  defenders  of  special  privileges. 

It  is  seldom  indeed  that  ("ongressmen  sincerely  de- 
sirous of  passing  some  new  legislation  cannot  reason  to 
their  own  satisfaction  that  such  legislation  is  constitu- 
tional, but  it  is  equally  as  seldom  that  any  legislation 
that  is  in  any  way  a  new  departure  is  not  combatted 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  unconstitutional  by  those  who 
do  not  approve  of  it,  who  feel  it  would  hurt  the  inter- 
ests of  those  they  serve  and  who  dislike  it.  And  so  has 
it  come  to  pass  that  the  Constitution  has  been  made 
more  use  of  to  shelter  the  oppressors  of  mankind,  shel- 
ter iniquities  and  injustice,  than  to  protect  our  people 
in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights  and  liberties.  And  so 
has  the  fundamental  law  of  the  land  been  brought  into 
discredit,  for  instead  of  serving  to  secure  to  the  people 
the  doing  of  their  will,  it  has  been  used  to  prevent  their 
will  from  being  done. 

To  remedy  this  we  must  make  the  fundamental  law 
in  fact  what  in  theory  it  is — namely,  the  basic  expres- 
sion of  the  will  of  the  people;  must  amend  the  Consti- 
tution so  as  to  make  it  in  effect  what  it  was  intended  to 
be,  the  bulwark  of  our  liberties.  And  to  this  end  we 
need  but  add  one  single  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, one  that  shall  declare  that  the  will  of  the  people 
shall  be  observed;  that  whaiin^er  the  people  sav  is  law, 
shall  be  law  anything  to  the  contrary  in  the  Constitu- 


28  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

tion  notwithstanding;  that  shall  read  that  a  law  passed 
upon  and  approved  by  a  direct  vote  of  the  people  shall 
be  considered  fundamental  law,  and  being  fundamen- 
tal law  shall  not  be  subject  to  nullification  by  a  de- 
cision of  the  Supreme  Court  declaring  it  unconstitu- 
tional, that  Congress  may,  at  its  discretion,  pass  any 
law  with  the  proviso  that  it  shall  be  referred  to  the 
people  and  not  become  operative  unless  approved  by 
them,  in  which  event  it  shall  become  operative  not 
alone  with  the  force  of  statute  law,  but  with  the  force 
of  fundamental  law,  and  further  providing  that  upon 
petition  signed  by  qualified  electors  to  the  number  of 
say  1  per  cent,  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  last  preceding 
congressional  election,  any  measure  passed  by  Congress 
shall  be  laid  before  the  people  that  they  may  vote  upon 
it,  that  if  approved  it  shall  have  the  force  of  fundamen- 
tal law,  that  if  rejected  it  shall  fall,  and  that  whenever 
a  like  percentage  of  the  people  may  by  petition  pro- 
pose a  law  the  law  thus  initiated  shall  be  laid  be- 
fore the  people  for  their  approval,  and,  if  approved, 
shall  be  considered  part  of  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
land. 

Such  is  the  amendment  needed  to  restore  our  Con- 
stitution as  the  bulwark  of  our  liberties,  to  which 
amendment,  and  with  a  view  to  closing  the  door  to  any 
possible  misunderstanding  of  its  scope,  might  properly 
be  added  the  further  proviso  that  a  law  passed  by  the 
people  shall  only  be  repealed  by  the  people,  that  Con- 
gress shall  not  have  the  power  to  repeal  a  law  passed 
by  a  power  superior  to  itself,  to  undo  that  which  a 
power  from  which  it  derives  its  own,  authority  has 
done. 

It  being  imperative  to  amend  the  Constitution  in 
this  way  in  order  that  the  reverence  for  that  instru- 
ment, as  the  bulwark  of  the  oppressed,  may  not  be  lost, 
the  question  is:  How  to  set  about  it?     And,  as  we  have 


OUR    COXSTITUTIOX.  29 

said,  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  made  it  some- 
what difficult  to  amend,  providing  that  it  can  only  be 
amended  with  the  approval  of  three-fourths  of  the 
States.  Now  this  does  not  mean  of  necessity  that  an 
amendment  to  become  operative  must  meet  with  the 
approval  of  throe-fourths  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  or  even  with  the  approval  of  the  majority,  but 
merely  that  the  majority  of  the  people  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  States,  who  might  readily  be  a  minority 
of  the  whole,  and  they  speaking  not  directly  but 
through  their  representative  assemblies,  shall  approve. 
In  short,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  thirty-four  states  of 
smallest  population  might  force  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  in  face  of  the  opposition  of  the  eleven 
States  of  greatest  population,  and  though  the  popula- 
tion of  the  latter  eleven  States  is  larger  in  the  aggre- 
gate than  that  of  the  former  thirt3'-four.  That  it 
should  thus  be  in  the  power  of  a  minority  of  the  peo- 
ple to  change  the  Constitution  is  but  one  of  the  out- 
growths of  the  compromise  that  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  found  themselves  obliged  to  make  in 
order  to  bring  the  small  and  large  States  together  into 
a  compact  union.  But  all  this  is  a  hypothesis  resting 
upon  little  basis  of  probability,  and  that  is  hardly 
worth  our  while  to  consider,  for  practically  the  require- 
ment that  three-fourths  of  the  States  approve  a  pro- 
posed constitutional  amendment  before  it  becomes  obli- 
gatory, is  tantamount  to  a  requirement  that  consid- 
erably more  than  a  majority  of  our  people  approve. 
And  therefore  it  is  that  the  amending  of  the  Consti- 
tution is  somewhat  difficult. 

But  the  task  beiiig  somewhat  difficult  is  all  the  more 
reason  that  we  should  set  about  it.  And  there  are 
just  two  ways  provided  by  the  Constitution  in  which 
we  can  set  about  it.  One  of  these  depends  on  Congres- 
sional initiative,  and  in  this  way  we  can  accomplish  lit- 


30  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

tic  ill  the  desired  direction  in  the  immediate  future. 
Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  if  Congressional  initiative  could 
be  secured  even  after  the  elections  of  1900,  and  though 
those  elections  resulted  in  a  signal  victory  for  those 
who  believe  in  government  of,  by  and  for  the  people, 
hence  in  the  initiative  and  referendum  and  in  restor- 
ing the  Constitution  as  a  bulwark  against  oppression, 
for  it  is  provided  that  Congress  can  only  initiate  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  both 
houses.  And  unless  hold-over  Republican  and  Demo- 
cratic Senators  could  be  convinced  of  the  propriety  of 
such  amendment  as  proposed,  the  securing  of  a  two- 
thirds  vote  in  the  Senate  for  such  amendment  during 
the  sessions  of  the  Fifty-seventh  Congress  is  quite  out 
of  the  question,  however  great  a  landslide  there  may  be 
away  from  the  plutocracy-ridden  Republican  and 
Democratic  parties. 

Therefore  we  are  well-nigh  shut  off  from  the  hope  of 
securing  the  desired  amendment  of  the  Constitution 
through  the  initiative  of  Congress.  So  Ave  turn  to  the 
other  way  for  amending  the  Constitution  provided  by 
the  Constitution.  This  other  way  places  the  initia- 
tive upon  the  State  legislatures.  On  the  application 
of  the  legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  several  States, 
reads  the  Constitution,  Congress  shall  call  a  conven- 
tion to  put  in  form  the  Constitutional  amendments 
desired  by  the  petitioning  States  for  submission  to  the 
people  of  all  the  States,  acting  either  through  their 
legislatures  or  specially  called  conventions  as  Congress 
may  provide,  which  amendments,  it  is  provided,  shall 
be  considered  binding  if  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the 
States.  In  this  way  can  the  Constitution  be  amended 
despite  a  hostile  Senate,  and  wherever  there  is  in  a 
State  legislature  a  member  believing  in  government  by 
the  people  he  can  profitably  put  in  some  time  in  urging 
upon  the  legislature  of  which  he  is  a  member  the  mak- 


OUR    CONSTITUTIOX.  31 

ing  of  such  application.  Even  though  his  arguments 
fall  on  deaf  ears,  his  pleadings  upon  unresponsive 
hearts  and  his  labors  bear  no  immediate  results,  they 
will  not  be  fruitless  if  they  serve  to  put  the  several 
legislatures  on  record  and  make  the  question  of  Con- 
stitutional amendment,  the  question  of  giving  recogni- 
tion to  the  system  of  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
the  question  of  giving  the  people  povrer  to  see  that 
their  will  shall  be  done,  their  voice  be  heeded,  one  of 
public  discussion. 

In  Switzerland  the  people  enjoy  what  is  known  as 
the  imperative  petition.  That  is,  when  a  certain  per- 
centage of  the  voters  petition  the  national  assembly 
that  body  is  obliged  to  respond  by  framing  a  law  of  the 
character  demanded  by  the  petitioners  for  submission 
to  the  people.  Then  if  a  majority  of  the  Swiss  people 
approve,  the  law  so  framed  and  really  initiated  by  pe- 
tition becomes  operative.  Now  it  is  nmch  this  same 
power  of  imperative  petition  that  our  State  legislatures 
have  in  regard  to  jjroposing  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution. When  the  legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the 
States  petition  for  a  change  it  is  imperative  upon  Con- 
gress to  call  a  constitutional  convention  to  formulate 
such  change  for  submission  to  the  several  States,  when 
if  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  them  it  becomes  opera- 
tive. 

We  urge  State  legislatures  believing  in  rule  by  the 
people  to  frame  such  petitions,  and  thus  pave  the  way 
for  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  after  the  elec- 
tions of  1900  that  will  re-establish  our  Constitution  as 
the  bulwark  of  the  oppressed.  Time  taken  by  the  fore- 
lock now  will  be  time  saved  a  year  hence,  when  all 
delays  in  effecting  the  desired  amendment,  and  un- 
avoidable because  of  the  necessity  of  working  through 
the  somewhat  cumbersome  machinery  of  amendment, 
may  be  exasperating  in  the  extreme. 


RAILROAD  AS  THE  MASTER— MAN  AS  THE 
SERVANT. 

[January  1st,  1898.] 

BACK  in  the  first  decades  of  this  century  the 
building  of  great  works  of  internal  communica- 
tion, of  common  paths  of  trade  and  commerce 
to  be  open  to  the  use  of  all  men  alike  was  imdertaken 
under  the  guiding  hand  of  the  national  government. 
The  building  of  roads  to  promote  the  interchange  of 
the  products  of  men's  labor  and  so  weld  together  the 
people  of  the  east  and  west  with  bands  of  common  in- 
terest was  judged  to  be  a  function  rightly  falling  to  the 
national  government,  and  so  we  had  extensive  plans  of 
internal  improvement  mapped  out  by  the  United 
States  Government,  we  had  some  great  post  roads  built, 
we  had  many  other  roads  and  many  canals  contem- 
plated. The  national  government  was  fairly  started  on 
the  course  of  supplying  our  people  with  ways  and 
means  of  communication,  national  roads  and  water- 
ways that  would  be  open  to  all  men  on  like  terms  with- 
out preference  or  prejudice.  The  opening  of  these 
channels  of  communication  on  other  terms  was  not 
dreamed  of,  the  possibility  of  the  ways  of  communica- 
tion ever  being  opened  to  use  on  other  terms  than 
those  of  exact  equality  would  have  been  scouted. 

But  unfortunately  the  policy  of  national  construc- 
tion and  ownership  of  the  means  of  internal  communi- 
cation thus  so  happily  and  naturally  inaugurated  was 
made  a  party  question.  So  when  there  came  an  over- 
turn of  parties  there  came  a  relaxation  in  this  policy. 
The  national  government  ceased  to  push  the  contem- 


i 


RAILROAD   THE    MASTER,    MAN   THE    SERVAXT.        33 

plated  works  of  internal  development.  And  as  the  na- 
tion dropped  these  works  the  States  took  them  up. 
Thus  State  construction  and  ownership  of  the  ways 
and  means  of  communication  came  to  supplant  na- 
tional ownership.  We  had  an  era  of  the  building  of 
State  roads,  of  turnpikes  and  canals. 

While  this  construction  was  under  way  there  came 
the  practical  application  of  steam  to  locomotive  ma- 
chinery that  was  to  revolutionize  the  transportation 
systems  of  the  world.  Slowly  but  surely  the  superiority 
of  the  railroad  and  the  locomotive  over  the  turnpike 
forced  itself  upon  men's  minds.  And  then  the  States 
turned  to  the  building  of  iron  roads  as  they  had  turned 
to  the  building  of  turnpikes  and  canals.  Many  of  the 
first  railroads  in  the  United  States  were  built  by  the 
States,  and  with  the  expectation  that  they  should  be 
managed  by  the  States. 

But,  unfortunately,  the  building  and  management 
of  many  of  these  roads  was  not  free  from  scandal. 
Moreover  there  came  a  demand  for  the  construction  of 
these  roads  and  for  an  expenditure  of  money  that  the 
States  could  not  provide  for  out  of  taxation,  and  there 
was  an  aversion  to  the  States  running  into  debt.  So 
the  organization  of  joint  stock  companies,  already  re- 
sorted to  for  the  building  of  many  turnpike  enter- 
prises, was  hit  upon.  Railroad  companies  were  char- 
tered by  the  States  and  given  special  privileges  and 
valuable  grants.  Thus  the  corporation  came  to  sup- 
plant the  state  in  providing  the  people  with  means  of 
communication.  No  one  dreamed  but  that  the  railroad 
companies  thus  chartered  would  serve  all  men  equally, 
as  the  chartered  turnpikes  had  done,  do  like  service 
for  all  men  for  like  charges  and  without  prejudice  or 
preference.  In  brief,  when  the  people,  through  their 
representatives,  chartered  and  created  railroad  corpora- 
tions and  conferred  upon  them  valuable  grants  it  was 


34  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

supposed  that  the  railroads  thus  created  would  serve 
the  people. 

But  as  our  railroad  systems  were  evolved  out  of  their 
meagre  beginnings  they  gradually  lost  the  character  of 
common  carriers.  As  they  have  grown  in  age  and 
strength  so  have  they  grown  to  tyrannize  over  shippers; 
as  railroad  consolidation  has  gone  on  and  as  the 
stronger  roads  have  spread  and  systematized  their  con- 
trol over  the  smaller,  so  have  they  systematized  their 
tyrannies.  The  treatment  of  all  men  at  the  hands  of 
the  railroads  M'ith  exact  equality,  the  rendering,  by  the 
railroads,  of  like  services  for  like  charges  to  all  ship- 
pers, without  preference  or  prejudice,  is  a  thing  of  the 
past.  It  is  now  the  promptest  service  for  the  small- 
est charges  to  the  shipper  who  will  purchase  such  favor 
by  sharing  the  profit  resulting  from  such  favor  with 
railroad  managers,  the  worst  service  and  the  highest 
charges  to  the  shipper  who  will  not  be  a  party  to  such 
dishonest  practices,  who  will  not  stoop  to  the  bribery 
of  railroad  officials.  It  is  now  the  best  service  for  the 
smallest  charges  to  the  industries  in  which  railroad 
managers  have  a  direct  or  indirect  interest,  the  slowest 
service  at  the  highest  rates  to  independent  producers 
who  are  striving  to  get  ahead  by  legitimate  means  and 
without  swelling  their  profits  at  other's  expense  by 
compounding  with  dishonest  railroad  managers. 

Of  a  necessity  honesty  fails  in  businesses  dependent 
on  rail  transportation;  it  is  dishonesty  that  succeeds,  it 
is  honesty  that  is  rewarded  with  failure,  dishonesty 
with  riches  and  power.  And  so  it  is  the  best  service 
and  lowest  rates  for  the  rich  and  powerful,  for  the 
cliques,  the  combines,  the  trusts,  while  it  is  the  worst 
service  and  highest  rates  for  the  poorer  shippers  and 
for  the  industrious  who  bend  their  energies  to  pro- 
duce wealth,  not  to  planning  ways  for  the  accumula- 
tion of  wealth  by  despoiling  other  men  of  the  fruits  of 


RAILROAD    THE    MASTER,    MAN    THE    SERVANT.       35 

their  toil.  Xor  is  this  any  overcolored  picture.  It  is 
a  phiin  statement  of  conditions  as  they  are.  The  rail- 
roads, tliough  chartered  and  created  by  the  State  to 
serve  the  people,  to  serve  all  men  without  preference  or 
prejudice,  do  not  do  so.  The  creator  has  become  the 
servant,  the  created  is  no  longer;  the  railroad  is  the 
master,  man  the  servant. 

So  have  the  relations  of  railroad  and  public  been  re- 
versed. It  is  no  longer  the  railroad  that  serves  the 
public  for  the  mutual  advantage  of  stockholders  and 
shippers,  it  is  the  public  that  is  made  to  serve  the  rail- 
road cliques  and  combines.  No  longer  are  the  rail- 
roads directed  so  as  to  promote  industry  by  insuring 
to  all  shippers  an  equality  of  service  and  at  like  rates, 
no  longer  are  they  directed  so  as  to  give  all  men  com- 
mon and  e([ual  opportunities  in  the  distribution  of  the 
products  of  their  labor,  so  encourage  enterprise,  swell 
traflic  and  railroad  earnings,  and  so  increase  the  re- 
turn to  stockholders,  but  they  are  directed  so  as  to 
SMcU  the  profits  of  the  speculative  cliques,  of  the  trusts 
and  combines,  profits  made  not  by  honest  industry,  but 
liy  despoiling  the  industrious  Avho  are  shippers  of 
freights  over  the  railroads  on  the  one  hand,  and  rail- 
road stockholders  on  the  other. 

If  a  turnjiikc  company  should  make  a  regular  charge 
of  one  cent  a  mile  but  should  permit  the  teams  of  those 
farms  which  the  turn])ike  managers  had  an  interest  in 
to  use  it  upon  payment  of  three-quarters  of  a  cent  a 
mile  while  charging  the  full  rate  to  the  poorer  farm- 
ers, what  would  be  thought  of  that  turnpike?  We 
fancy  such  turnpike  company  would  soon  be  abolished, 
that  the  men  who  directed  such  discrindnation  in  tolls 
would  find  themselves  on  the  way  to  the  penitentiary. 
Yet  this  is  just  what  our  railroads  do.  Railroad  man- 
agers direct  that  smaller  tolls  shall  be  charged  some 
Shippers  than  others,  they  share  in  the  extra  profits 


36  TUE    OKEAT    ISSUES. 

that  grow  out  of  the  i)rel'crence  in  rates  given  to  the 
favored  shippers.  The  railroad  managers  who  thus 
grow  rich  should  go  the  road  that  turnpike  managers, 
guilty  of  similar  crimes,  would  go,  but  they  don't;  they 
would  go  the  same  road  if  the  provisions  of  our  present 
laws  were  enforced  against  them,  but  such  provisions 
are  not  enforced.  On  the  contrary,  as  they  grow 
richer  from  pursuit  of  practices  that  should  send  them 
to  the  penitentiary  they  hold  their  heads  higher,  in  a 
corrupt  society  they  are  held  in  higher  esteem. 

The  only  difference  between  the  supposed  case  of  the 
turnpike  and  the  actual  case  of  our  railroads  is  one  of 
the  magnitude  of  the  grievance,  of  the  injustice  done. 
The  grievance  that  farmers  charged  a  toll  of  one  cent 
a  mile  would  have  against  the  turnpike  company  that 
permitted  certain  favored  farmers  to  use  the  pike  upon 
a  payment  of  three-fourths  of  the  regular  rate  would, 
in  a  way,  be  small.  As  the  distances  of  transportation 
over  the  turnpikes  would  be  short,  and  as  the  toll 
would  amount  to  an  infinitesimal  fraction  of  the  value 
of  the  j^roduce  transported,  the  advantage  that  the  fav- 
ored farmers  Avould  have  over  others  because  of  the 
enjoyment  of  lower  tolls  would  be  inappreciable.  But 
in  the  case  of  our  railroads  this  advantage  is  not  small, 
for  the  distances  over  which  goods  are  transported  by 
our  railroads  are  great  and  the  freight  charges  often 
amount  to  a  very  considerable  proportion  of  the  value 
of  the  product,  so  that  the  advantage  conferred  upon  a 
shipper  by  a  moderate  cut  in  rates  below  those  charged 
to  competitors  is  most  important,  often  large  enough 
to  equal  the  full  amount  of  profit  in  the  shipment,  and 
when  this  is  so  those  who  have  not  the  advantage  of 
the  lower  rate  cannot  prosper,  they  cannot  ship  at  a 
profit;  if  they  continue  to  ship  they  must  fall  behind  as 
the  favored  shipper  gets  ahead,  and  the  result  must  be 
in  the  end  the  drying  up  of  many  businesses  honestly 
conducted  while  the  dishonestlv  conducted  thrive. 


RAILllOAU    THE    MASTER,    MAN    THE    SERVANT.        o7 

As  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commissioners  truly 
say  in  their  eleventh  annual  report,  recently  made  pub- 
lic: "A  very  slight  change  in  rates  upon  any  of  the 
staple  commodities  amounts  to  an  enormous  sum  in 
the  aggregate.  In  most  articles  of  daily  use  the  trans- 
portation charge  is  a  large,  and  often  the  larger,  part 
of  the  cost  to  the  consumer.  The  freight  rate  may  de- 
termine whether  the  Kansas  farmer  shall  burn  his  corn 
for  fuel  or  send  it  to  market.  The  traffic  manager  may 
decree  whether  an  industry  shall  exist  or  a  locality 
flourish." 

And  not  only  may  the  traffic  manager  decree  failure 
to  one  enterprise,  success  to  another,  growth  and  de- 
velopment to  one  locality,  shrinkage  to  another,  but  he 
does  so  decree.  Such  abuses  are  intolerable.  To  rid 
ourselves  from  them,  to  insure  to  all  men  like  trans- 
portation facilities  without  discrimination  as  to 
charges  and  so  take  the  making  and  undoing  of  for- 
tunes out  of  the  hands  of  railroad  managers,  we  must 
return  to  first  principles  in  the  construction,  owner- 
ship and  management  of  our  ways  and  means  of  com- 
munication. The  government  early  started  out  on  the 
policy  of  constructing  and  managing  post  roads.  It 
dropped  this  duty,  the  duty  of  insuring  to  our  people 
like  transportation  services  at  like  charges  to  the 
States,  and  the  States  dropped  it  to  corporations.  Cor- 
porations gladly  assumed  the  task  of  supplying  ways 
;ind  means  of  communication  thus  dropped  to  them, 
Init  not  the  duties.  Our  railroads  have  grown  greatly, 
but  they  have  not  grown  as  common  carriers,  but  as 
]iroferential  carriers,  and  so  we  have  had  gross  abuses. 
To  free  ourselves  from  such  abuses  the  national  gov- 
ernment must  resume  the  work  it  dropped,  the  work 
of  providing  ways  and  means  of  communication  com- 
mon to  the  use  of  all  men  alike;  it  must  assume  the 
ownership  and  management  of  our  railroads. 


inmr^ 


OUE  EAILEOADS  AS  OPPEESSOES  OF  THE 

HONEST  AND  SEEVITOES  OF  THE 

UNSCEUPULOUS. 

[March  19th,  1898.] 

THE  enormity  of  the  extortion  carried  on  under 
cover  of  our  railroads  is  hard  to  conceive.  Hid- 
den by  practices  that  are  innumerable,  by  un- 
derhand practices  that  are  as  reprehensible  as  the 
grievous  exactions  and  injustices  so  carefully  hidden, 
it  is  hard  to  uncover  the  extent  of  the  evils  that  have 
grown  up  around  the  building  and  operation  of  our 
railroads.  The  injustice  of  discrimination  in  freight 
charges  and  transportation  services,  the  injustice  and 
wrong  of  charging  those  outside  of  the  railroad  cliques, 
the  trusts  and  combines  built  up  on  the  favors  granted 
by  the  railroads — of  charging  those  outside  of  these 
cliques  higher  rates  than  those  within  can  readily  be 
grasped,  but  the  extent  to  which  this  discrimination  is 
carried,  and  hence  the  magnitude  of  the  Avrong  and 
evil  done,  it  is  impossible  to  show  in  all  its  enormity, 
for  the  discriminations  are  so  adroitly  covered  and  hid- 
den that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  uncover  them  in  all 
their  nakedness.  And  even  as  it  is  hard  to  compre- 
hend the  magnitude  of  the  injury  done  by  discrimina- 
tion in  railroad  charges  and  services  is  it  hard  to  com- 
prehend the  extent  of  the  systematic  over-capitalizing 
and  wrecking  of  our  railroads  that  has  been  carried 
on. 

We  speak  of  discrimination  in  transportation  ser- 
vices as  well  as  charges,  for  the  reason  that  promptness 
of  service  is  often  of  importance  secondary  only  to 


BAILROAD   EXTORTIONS.  39 

that  of  reasonableness  of  rates,  and  to  supply  some 
with  prompter  service  than  others  is  to  give  to  the 
favored  a  great  advantage.  To  side-track  a  shipment 
of  grain  somewhere  en  route  from  Chicago  to  the  sea- 
board, side-track  it  after  a  steamer  has  been  chartered 
to  carry  such  grain  abroad  and  while  that  steamer  is 
awaiting  its  cargo,  will  entail  upon  the  shipper  great 
loss,  for  demurrage  charges  will  pile  up  against  him 
on  account  of  the  undue  detention  of  the  steamer. 
Every  day  the  steamer  is  unduly  detained  in  idleness 
is  a  day  subtracted  from  the  number  of  days  during 
the  year  that  the  steamer  should  be  engaged  in  carry- 
ing cargoes  and  earning  freights.  And  if  the  shipper 
chartering  a  steamer  to  carry  out  a  cargo  has  not  his 
cargo  ready  and  so  detains  the  steamer,  he  puts  off  the 
day  on  which  that  steamer  w^ould,  under  other  condi- 
tions, be  ready  for  another  cargo;  he  lengthens  the  time 
required  for  a  round  voyage,  diminishes  the  number  of 
trips  that  might  be  made  in  a  given  time,  so  curtails 
the  earning  capacity  of  the  boat  from  the  carriage  of 
freight  within  such  given  time,  and  this  curtailment  of 
the  chance  of  the  boat  to  earn  freights  from  others 
must  be  paid  for  by  the  shipper  who  is  so  unfortunate 
as  to  detain  the  steamer. 

Thus  any  delay  on  the  part  of  a  railroad  to  deliver  a 
shipment  of  grain  at  seaboard  has  the  effect  of  increas- 
ing the  ocean  freight  that  tlie  shipper  must  pay.  And 
clearly  the  shipper  who  is  systematically  subjected  to 
the  side  tracking  of  his  grain  while  his  rivals  can  de- 
pend upon  tlie  ju'ompt  arrival  of  their  sliipments,  is 
put  at  a  serious  handicap,  and  must  finally  be  driven 
out  of  the  trade.  And  this  is  one  of  the  annoyances 
to  which  sliippers  of  grain  outside  of  the  cli(iues  have 
ever  and  anon  been  sul)jeeted  to  their  great  loss,  and 
of  which  much  complaint  has  at  times  been  made. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  shipper  of  grain  thus  con- 


40  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

stantly  subjected  to  the  side-tracking  oi'  the  cars  with 
his  grain  while  the  grain  of  others  comes  through  un- 
erringly without  delay,  might  calculate  on  the  longer 
time  that  his  grain  was  usually  kept  en  route  and  in- 
sure himself  against  demurrage  charges  for  the  deten- 
tion of  a  steamer  chartered  to  forward  the  shipment  by 
shipping  his  grain  from  Chicago  at  a  date  sufficiently 
before  that  fixed  for  the  loading  of  the  chartered 
steamer  as  to  insure  the  grain  being  on  hand,  even 
though  side-tracked  and  kept  an  undue  time  en  route. 
But  this  would  oblige  this  shipper  or  those  purchasing 
grain  through  him,  to  advance  the  money  for  pur- 
chases of  grain  earlier  than  when  the  grain  was  to  be 
forwarded  by  the  shippers  receiving  from  the  railroads 
prompt  service.  Consequently  these  latter  shippers 
would  be  preferred  because  there  would  be  a  saving  of 
the  outlay  for  interest  on  shipments  made  through 
them. 

So  to  hold  on  to  a  share  of  the  shipments  the  pro- 
ducer impelled  by  discrimination  in  promptness  of 
service  to  order  grain  earlier  than  his  favored  rivals, 
would  have  to  offer  to  do  business  for  a  smaller  com- 
mission, so  that  the  saving  in  commission  might  offset 
the  loss  of  interest  entailed  because  of  the  longer  time 
grain  forwarded  by  such  shipper  would  have  to  be  car- 
ried than  that  forwarded  by  his  favored  rivals.  Be- 
sides, the  taking  of  such  care  and  at  such  cost  to  avoid 
steamship  demurrage  charges  would  not,  of  any  cer- 
tainty, relieve  such  shipper  of  demurrage  charges. 
This  for  the  reason  that  the  cliques  operating  to  ruin 
him  and  using  the  railroads  as  their  tools  would  be 
prone  to  see  that  the  railroads  would  run  his  grain 
through  without  delay  when  they  were  certain  he  was 
not  ready  to  receive  it.  And  then,  unprepared  to  un- 
load his  cars,  he  would  be  in  for  demurrage  charges  on 
account  of  the  undue  detention  of  the  cars,  or  he  would 


EAILROAD    EXTORTIONS.  41 

have  to  provide  storage  room  for  his  grain  which  would 
amount  to  about  the  same  thing. 

It  is  in  this  matter  of  demurrage  that  the  railroads 
cover  up  much  discrimination.  The  standing  rule  of 
all  railroads  is  to  require  the  unloading  of  freight  from 
their  cars  within  a  very  limited  time  after  the  arrival 
of  the  cars  at  destination,  usually  within  a  period  of 
twenty-four  or  forty-eight  hours.  If  the  cars  are  not 
unloaded  within  the  stated  time  limit  demurrage 
charges  are  piled  up.  But  in  the  case  of  many  favored 
shippers  the  railroads  conveniently  forget  to  charge  up 
or  collect  demurrage  charges.  Thus,  in  effect,  they 
lend  their  cars  to  such  shippers  as  free  storage  houses, 
and  so  such  shippers  are  relieved  from  the  necessity 
of  providing  storage  room  and  paying  storage  charges 
where  others  must.  This  sort  of  preference  or  dis- 
crimination has  been  proven  before  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  and  in  regard  to  many  classes 
of  freight.  Indeed,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  it  is 
a  species  of  discrimination  constantly  availed  of,  and 
very  serious  discrimination  it  is.  Like  all  discrimina- 
tion it  results,  of  course,  in  loss  to  the  railroad  com- 
panies, puts  them  to  an  expense  in  supplying  cars  that 
they  should  not  be  obliged  to  incur.  Indeed,  it  has 
often  resulted,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe,  in  so 
tying  up  cars  as  to  render  it  impossible  for  the  rail- 
roads to  supply  cars  asked  for  by  shippers  outside  of 
the  cliques,  or  at  least  give  the  railroads  an  excuse  for 
failure  to  supply  cars  and  so  delay  the  shipments  of  the 
unfavored. 

Much  of  the  grain  shipped,  indeed  most  of  the  grain 
ship])ed  from  New  York,  is  loaded  into  the  ships  by 
floating  elevators;  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  most 
of  the  grain  is  loaded  direct  from  elevators  that  serve 
as  storage  elevators,  as  well  as  loading.  And  it  is  clear 
that  the  side-tracking  of  grain  cars    in   the    railroad 


42  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

yards  of  New  York  or  I'hiladelphia  or  Baltimore  or 
elsewhere,  and  the  holding  of  the  cars  of  the  favored 
shippers  thus  side-tracked  without  charge  until  the 
shippers  are  ready  to  ship  the  grain,  and  it  may  be 
passed  through  the  elevators  to  the  ships  without  stor- 
age charges,  or  through  the  floating  elevators  and  into 
the  ships  without  storage  charges,  amounts  to  the  giv- 
ing of  great  preference.  And  when  other  shippers 
outside  of  the  cliques  arc  charged  for  car  demurrage  if 
they  keep  cars  standing  in  the  yards,  or  storage  charges 
if  they  unload  them  promptly  unless  they  can  so  nicely 
time  the  arrival  of  their  shipments  as  to  have  the  grain 
always  arrive  when  the  steamer  chartered  to  carry  it  is 
ready  to  receive  it,  it  is  clear  they  will  be  forced  to 
work  under  a  serious  handicap.  And,  of  course,  they 
must  work  under  a  serious  handicap,  for  the  railroad 
cliques  will  be  sure  to  make  it  impossible  for  them  to 
thus  nicely  time  the  arrival  of  their  shipments,  as  we 
have  seen. 

Another  favorite  method  of  discrimination  much 
akin  to  this  is  covered  up  in  switching  charges,  espe- 
cially the  switching  of  cars  from  the  tracks  of  one  rail- 
road to  the  tracks  of  another.  This  is  most  notorious- 
ly true  of  the  Chicago  Belt  Line.  For  the  switching 
of  cars  over  this  line  and  from  one  of  the  granger  roads 
running  to  the  west  to  one  of  the  trunk  roads  running 
to  the  east  it  appears  that  the  railroads  have  added  to 
the  total  freight  charge  as  much  as  five  cents  a  hundred 
pounds,  or  a  charge  for  switching  the  cars  a  few  miles 
of  one-third  as  much  as  the  schedule  freight  charge  for 
shipments  of  grain  from  Chicago  to  the  seaboard.  But 
to  the  favored  shippers  this  charge  seems  often  to  have 
been  entirely  remitted,  the  charging  against  them  of 
anything  for  switching  being  purposely  overlooked, 
"accidentally"  if  the  question  happens  to  be  raised 


RAILROAD    EXTORTIONS.  43 

ill  any  case.  In  this  way  those  guilty  of  discrimination 
secure  immunity  from  punishment. 

The  Chicago  Belt  Line  exacts  payments  for  all  the 
switchings  over  its  lines,  at  least  it  is  so  believed,  the 
railroads  receiving  the  grain  making  such  payments 
out  of  the  gross  freight  charges  and  supposedly  adding 
such  payments  to  their  througli  rates.  But,  as  we  have 
said,  this  they  forget  to  do  in  the  case  of  the  favored 
shippers,  with  the  result  that  such  shippers  get  their 
grain  through  five  cents  a  hundred  cheaper  because  of 
this  oversight,  and  the  granger  road  and  the  trunk  line 
that  pay  the  switching  charges  have  five  cents  a  hun- 
dred less  to  divide  between  them.  And  what  occurs  at 
Chicago  occurs  at  Philadelphia,  where  there  is  an  arbi- 
trary charge  made  for  switching  of  three  cents  a  hun- 
dred, but  the  favored  shippers  quite  generally  escape 
this  "  arbitrary."  It  is  not  added  to  tlie  rate  charged 
Ihem  as  it  is  to  the  unfavored  shippers  of  grain,  of 
whom,  however,  it  might  be  said  there  are  none,  for 
they  cannot  live  under  the  gross  discriminations.  This 
arbitral  y  switching  charge  makes  a  convenient  cover 
for  rebates.  And  as  the  open  rate  on  grain  from  Chi- 
cago to  Philadelphia  is  only  fifteen  cents  we  can  see 
what  this  rebate  amounts  to. 

And  what  is  true  of  switching  charges  at  Philadel- 
phia is  true  of  switching  charges  at  nearly  all  large 
cities;  it  is  true  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  where  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission  has  recently  been  making 
some  investigations.  There  it  has  l)een  shown  that 
these  switching  charges  are  not  made  against  certain 
large  grain  shippers,  there  it  has  been  proven  that  de- 
murrage charges  are  not  imposed  indiscriminately  but 
as  a  cover  to  discrimination,  there  it  has  been  proven 
that  the  charges  for  switching  and  holding  cars  over- 
time are  often  greater  than  the  regular  freight  rates, 
so  that  the  unfavored  shippers  who  are  unfailingly  re- 


44  THE   GKEAT   ISSUES. 

quired  to  pay  these  switching  and  demurrage  charges 
often  pay  double  the  freight  charges  paid  by  the  fav- 
ored shippers,  who  escape  the  switching  and  demur- 
rage charges.  Jt  is  no  wonder  that  the  favored 
monopolize  the  grain  trade. 

In  short,  covered  in  these  switching  and  demurrage 
charges  at  Cleveland  there  is  discrimination  of  100  per 
cent.  And  this  does  not  measure  the  extent  of  the  dis- 
crimination by  any  means. 

It  is  a  well-published  fact  that  the  railroads  charge 
much  less  for  freight  shipped  in  car  load  lots  and  to 
the  same  consignee  than  when  consigned  to  several 
different  parties.  And  this  seems  very  reasonable,  for 
the  labor  entailed  in  making  the  latter  kind  of  ship- 
ment and  in  delivering  the  goods  is  greater  than  in  the 
fir.st.  Thus  the  open  rate  on  a  carload  of  sugar  shipped 
in  Philadelphia  and  consigned  to  the  same  person,  say 
in  Cleveland,  is  much  less  than  upon  a  carload  of  sugar 
of  which  ten  barrels  is  consigned  to  one  grocer,  ten  to 
another,  and  so  on.  But  it  has  recently  been  brought 
to  light  that  the  railroads  ignore  this  extra  charge  im- 
posed on  divisional  shipments  where  the  Sugar  Trust 
is  in  question.  Thus  the  Sugar  Trust  has  been  per- 
mitted to  ship  carloads  of  sugar  consigned  ostensibly  to 
an  agent  in  Cleveland  who  is  not  the  real  consignee  at 
all.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  sugar  is  not 
delivered  to  him  but  delivered  upon  his  order  to  sundry 
different  grocerymen.  And  until  such  grocerymen 
have  wanted  sugar  the  railroads  have  held  sugar  in 
their  storehouses  and  without  charge  time  and  time 
again. 

Thus  the  railroads  made  of  themselves  a  business 
house  of  the  Sugar  Trust  in  Cleveland,  or  rather  ex- 
tended all  the  conveniences  that  a  business  house 
would  have  rendered  and  without  charge.  What  is 
more,  this  free  storage  practice  is  not  by  any  means 


EAII.1?0A1»    F.XTOHTIOXS.  45 

coiiiiiu'd  to  sugar  or  to  Cleveland.  We  even  lind  the 
li(  ight  agents  of  the  railroads,  in  the  pay  of  the  rail- 
roads, at  the  direction  of  the  railroads,  and  without  ad- 
ditional compensation,  rendering  to  various  industrial 
trusts  the  services  of  business  agents,  the  railroads  per- 
mitting such  trusts  to  consign  carloads  of  goods  to  such 
agents  and  instruct  such  agents  to  fill  the  orders  re- 
ceived hy  the  trusts  from  different  points  of  distrihu- 
tion  out  of  carloads  of  goods  shipped  to  the  freight 
agents  at  such  points.  It  is  in  this  way,  among  others, 
that  the  trusts  get  an  advantage  over  independent  pro- 
ducers, squee/.e  out  such  producers  and  hold  on  to  their 
monopoly.  In  this  way  they  secure  carload  rates  on 
shipments  of  goods  that  should  of  right  pay  the  higher 
rates. 

But  these  are  not  the  only  covert  ways  in  which  the 
trusts  and  combines  are  favored.  A  favorite  method 
of  (liseiimination  is  underbilling,  that  is  of  charging  for 
less  weight  than  actually  shipped.  It  appears  the  New 
York,  Xew  Haven  and  Hartford  llailroad  has  favored 
the  Standard  Oil  Trust  with  this  underbilling  for  some 
time.  This  has  been  accomplished,  it  seems,  by  mak- 
ing a  ridiculous  over-allowance  for  the  weight  of  the 
tank  cars,  thereby  diminishing  the  reported  weight  of 
oil  carried.  This  method  of  underbilling  and  discrimi- 
nation being  recently  uncovered  in  a  hearing  before 
one  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commissioners  the 
manager  of  the  trans])ortation  department  of  the 
Standard  Oil  avers  that  lie  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
underbilling,  that  it  resulted  from  a  mistake  in  calcu- 
lating the  weight  of  the  cars  and  so  aver  the  officials 
of  the  railroad.  At  the  same  time  they  promise  to  rec- 
tify the  abuse.  And  thus  by  promise  and  diplomatic 
lying,  by  pleading  ignorance,  they  escape  the  punish- 
ment tliat  should  be  theirs,  and  will  no  doubt  be  bend- 
ing their  energies  in  the  near  future  to  devising:  a  new 


46  THE    GREAT   ISSUES. 

method  of  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  Standard  Oil, 
if  indeed  they  serioutfly  apply  themselves  to  rectify  the 
underbilling  as  they  now  promise,  which  is  much  to  be 
doubted. 

Thus  we  see  how  under  the  cover  of  demurrage  and 
switching  charges,  under  the  cover  of  free  storage  and 
underbilling  the  railroads  discriminate  in  favor  of  the 
cliques,  the  trusts,  the  combines.  But  to  such  indi- 
rect discrimination  they  do  not  confine  themselves,  as 
effective  as  it  is.  They  grant  direct  rebates  to  the  fav- 
ored shippers.  Thus  the  open  rate  on  grain  shipments 
from  Chicago  to  Philadelphia  is  15  cents  a  hundred 
pounds,  but  it  is  currently  reported  that  all  the  most 
favored  shippers  pay  is  8  cents.  So  here  we  have  a 
direct  rebate  of  7  cents,  or  nearly  50  per  cent.,  in  addi- 
tion to  all  the  other  rebates  covered  up  in  ways  we 
have  seen.  Of  course  the  extent  of  these  rebates  can- 
not well  be  proven,  for  those  who  have  knowledge  of 
them  and  do  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  them  privately 
could  not  be  prevailed  upon  to  give  evidence  before 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  or  a  court,  for 
such  evidence  would  land  the  givers  and  receivers  of 
these  rebates  in  the  penitentiary,  and  this,  those  who 
profit  from  such  rebates  and  who  speak  of  such  rebates 
and  who  alone  have  direct  knowledge  of  their  extent 
cannot  be  expected  to  give.  Nor  can  they  be  forced 
to  give  evidence  that  would  be  incriminating. 

And  now  let  us  ask,  Who  are  those  who  profit  from 
these  rebates?  They  are  both  the  givers  and  receivers. 
The  railroad  managers  who  give,  profit  as  well  as  the 
cliques  who  receive.  They  profit  because  the  receivers 
of  the  rebates  of  which  the  railroad  stockholders  are 
deprived  give  back  to  such  managers  a  part  of  the  re- 
bates given.  It  is  this  return  rebate  that  tempts  rail- 
road managers  to  sacrifice  the  interests  intrusted  to 
their  care. 


RAILROAD    EXTORTIONS.  47 

The  magnitude  of  this  tiacrifiee  of  the  interests  of 
railroad  security  holders  cannot  well  be  arrived  at,  and 
it  can  hardly  be  comprehended.  The  freight  earnings 
of  our  railroads  last  year  were  nearly  $800,000,000, 
and  of  the  freight  carried  there  can  be  little. question 
that  quite  one-half  was  carried  by  the  favored  cliques, 
probably  much  more.  Indeed,  when  we  recall  the  un- 
questionable facts  that  almost  all  the  grain  shipped 
from  the  central  west  to  the  seaboard  is  shipped  by 
favored  shippers,  that  the  shipments  of  80  per  cent,  of 
our  mineral  oils  at  least  are  favored  shipments,  that 
the  greatest  of  our  trusts  and  combines  secure  rebates 
beyond  a  doubt,  are  indeed  the  children  of  rebates,  it 
seems  almost  absurdly  small  to  put  the  favored  ship- 
ments at  only  50  per  cent,  of  the  whole.  What  the 
average  rebate  on  the  favored  shipments  amounts  to  is 
equally  a  matter  of  conjecture,  but  we  have  shown  that 
50  per  cent.,  or  a  discrimination  of  100  per  cent,  in 
favor  of  the  cliques  would  be  no  extravagant  figure  at 
which  to  place  such  rebates.  Indeed,  when  we  recol- 
lect that  the  Standard  Oil  has  enjoyed  at  times  a  dis- 
crimination of  1,600  per  cent.,  and  when  we  recall  the 
movement  in  times  past  of  what  railroad  men  know  by 
the  name  of  "  ghost  trains,"  that  is  trains  loaded  with 
freight  carried  absolutely  free,  we  are  half  inclined  to 
think  that  the  favored  shippers  enjoy  an  average  dis- 
crimination of  over  100  per  cent. 

But  even  supposing  the  favored  shippers  only  con- 
trolled half  of  the  traffic,  and  enjoyed  discrimination 
of  an  average  of  but  100  per  cent.,  it  is  evident  that 
the  earnings  of  our  railroads  for  the  last  year  were  cut 
into  by  rebates  to  an  extent  of  $400,000,000,  that  their 
freight  earnings,  save  for  the  betrayal  of  the  interests 
of  the  railroads  by  their  managers,  a  betrayal  for  pri- 
vate gain,  would  have  been  $1,200,000,000  instead  of 
$800,000,000,  that  their  net  earnings  would  have  been 


48  THE   GEEAT   ISSUES. 

more  than  twice  as  large  as  they  were,  and  that,  inter- 
est charges  remaining  the  same,  they  could  have  paid 
as  dividends  to  stockholders  five  times  that  which  they 
did. 

If  the  public  had  the  advantage  of  these  rebates 
there  would  be  some  compensation  for  this  gross  be- 
trayal of  the  interests  of  railroad  stockholders.  But 
the  lovvering  of  rates  growing  out  of  such  rebates  has 
brought  the  public  no  benefit,  but  on  the  contrary, 
great  injury.  Out  of  such  rebates  have  grown  trusts 
and  combines  that  have  crushed  out  independent  pro- 
ducers, wrecked  their  enterprises,  taken  from  them 
their  accumulations  of  capital.  The  result  has  been 
to  centralize  wealth  in  a  few  hands  and  by  such  cen- 
tralization discourage  production,  retard  the  accumu- 
lation of  wealth,  and  so  clog  the  wheels  of  progress. 
But  this  is  not  all.  By  creating  monopolies  these  re- 
bates, and  the  secret  lowering  of  freight  rates  conse- 
quent thereon,  have  resulted  not  in  cheapening,  but  in 
enhancing  the  cost  of  such  monopolized  products  to  the 
American  consumer,  not  perhaps  in  actually  enhancing 
prices,  but  in  holding  prices  for  such  products  above 
the  level  to  which  they  would  otherwise  have  fallen. 
And  so  again  have  the  many  been  impoverished  that 
the  few  might  gain. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  granting  of  these  rebates, 
by  cutting  into  the  earnings  of  railroads,  has  been  the 
cause  of  the  wrecking  of  many  road.3.  Indeed,  in  not 
a  few  cases  the  producers  along  one  line  of  road  have 
been  deliberately  discriminated  against  in  favor  of  the 
producers  along  other  roads,  and  then  the  discrimina- 
tion reversed  with  a  view  to  alternately  wrecking  road 
and  industries  located  along  it,  alternately  building  up 
road  and  industries,  the  wrecking  of  the  road  being 
timed  to  occur,  it  is  needless  to  say,  when  the  cliques 
have  their  accumulations  in  the  industries  built  up  by 


RAILROAD    EXTORTIONS.  49 

bleeding  the  road,  and  the  wrecking  of  the  industries 
and  building  up  of  the  road  being  equally  timed  in  the 
interest  of  the  cliques.  Thus  by  raising  freight  rates 
along  a  road  have  the  industries  along  such  road  been 
discriminated  against  and  crushed.  Such  raising  of 
rates  at  first,  and  only  at  first,  is  calculated  to  increase 
the  railroad  earnings.  When  the  industries  are 
wrecked  and  bought  up  by  the  cliques  the  railroad  is 
sure  to  suffer  curtailment  of  earnings  and  final  wreck 
from  the  drying  up  of  the  industries  along  its  line. 
Then  by  putting  down  freight  rates  so  as  the  industries 
along  such  line  and  in  possession  of  the  cliques  may 
have  a  handicap  rather  than  be  handicapped  such  in- 
dustries will  be  built  up.  The  cliques  getting  out  of 
such  industries  and  into  the  wrecked  road  then  raise 
freight  rates.  For  a  while  the  unfortunate  industrial 
enterprises  struggle  along  at  a  loss  while  the  profits  of 
the  road  increase,  and  its  securities  held  by  the  clique 
are  pushed  up  in  price  and  sold,  when  this  policy  of  in- 
dustrial ruin  bears  its  fruits  in  wrecked  industries,  and 
finally  again  a  wrecked  road.  It  is  much  after  this 
manner  that  the  cliques  profit  from  their  schemes  of 
overcapitalization. 

So  we  see  how  the  rebates  of  which  we  have  spoken 
benefit  the  cliques  and  injure  the  masses  of  the  people, 
benefit  the  unscrupulous  and  injure  the  honest  in  all 
directions.  It  is  thus  that  the  railroads  have  become 
the  oppressors  of  the  honest  and  servitors  of  the  un- 
scrupulous, the  oppressors  of  the  weak  and  servitors  of 
the  strong.  Thus  it  is  that  the  wealth  produced  by 
the  many,  and  that  should  of  right  be  accumulated  by 
the  many,  passes  into  the  hands  of  the  few;  thus  it  is 
that  one  per  cent,  of  our  people  have  come  to  own  as 
much  property  as  the  remaining  ninety-nine;  that  one- 
eighth  of  the  families  in  America  receive  more  than 


60  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

half  of  the  aggregate  income;  that  the  richest  one  per 
cent,  receive  a  larger  income  than  the  poorer  fifty. 

If  it  is  wrong  to  build  a  road  at  a  cost  of  $5,000,000, 
and  then  capitalize  it  at  $10,000,000,  if  it  is  wrong  to 
issue  upon  said  road  $5,000,000  of  stock  for  which  no 
money  is  given  and  call  it  full  paid-up  capital,  if  it  is 
wrong  to  tax  the  users  of  our  railroads  to  pay  interest 
on  this  fictitious  capital,  then  bound  up  with  our  rail- 
road system  is  grievous  wrong,  for  after  this  manner  it 
is  capitalized.  If  it  is  wrong  to  charge  a  few  of  the 
most  powerful  shippers  only  eight  cents  a  hundred 
pounds  for  the  shipment  of  wheat  from  Chicago  to 
Philadelphia  while  charging  the  mass  of  shippers  fif- 
teen cents,  if  it  is  wrong  for  the  railroads  to  give  to 
some  shippers  the  use  of  their  cars  as  storehouses  free 
of  charge  but  not  to  all,  if  it  is  wrong  for  the  railroads 
to  act  as  the  business  agents  of  the  trusts,  while  refus- 
ing to  similarly  treat  the  ordinary  shipper,  if  it  is 
wrong  to  carry  the  goods  of  the  trusts  at  lower  rates 
than  the  goods  of  independent  producers,  if  it  is  wrong 
for  the  railroads  to  do  switching  without  charge  for  the 
clique  shippers  while  charging  all  other  shippers  stiffly; 
in  a  word,  if  it  is  wrong  for  our  railroads  to  operate  so 
as  to  deprive  men  of  an  equality  of  opportunity,  so  as 
to  build  up  trusts  and  monopolies,  so  as  to  impoverish 
the  many,  so  as  to  oppress  the  honest  and  serve  the 
unscrupulous,  then  sheltered  under  the  protection  of 
our  railroads  is  a  grievous  wrong,  for  after  this  man- 
ner are  they  operated. 

If  we  would  not  honor  and  enrich  the  big  criminals 
while  punishing  the  little,  we  must  put  an  end  to  the 
use  of  our  railroads  as  the  oppressors  of  our  people  and 
the  servitors  of  oligarchy.  And  this  demands  the  na- 
tionalization of  our  railroads.  There  is  no  other  alter- 
native. We  must  become  the  slaves  of  those  control- 
ling the  railroads  or  we  must  possess  those  railroads 


EAILROAD    EXTORTIONS.  51 

and  make  them  our  servants.     We  must  be  masters  or 
we  must  be  slaves.     Let  us  resolve  to  l)e  masters. 

So,  whereas  the  railroads  cannot  be  depended  upon 
as  common  carriers,  but  show  themselves  as  preferen- 
tial carriers,  making  extortionate  charges  for  some  ser- 
vices and  of  some  people  that  services  may  be  rendered 
to  others  for  a  song,  laying  unjustly  onerous  charges 
upon  some  that  others  may  be  relieved,  taxing  and  im- 
poverishing the  many  that  the  few  may  be  enriched,  we 
demand  the  nationalization  of  our  railroads  that  our 
people  may  enjoy  their  rightful  inheritance,  may  enjoy 
equality  in  fact  as  well  as  name,  the  right  to  life,  lib- 
erty and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 


NATIONALIZE  THE  RAILROADS  OR  PAUPER- 
IZE THE  NATION. 

[November  5th,  1898.] 

FOR  long  years  we  have  relied  largely  upon  com- 
petition to  give  to  our  people  equitable  trans- 
portation rates.  To  secure  such  rates  through 
competition  many  States  have  prohibited  railroads  run- 
ning through  their  territory  from  purchasing,  absorb- 
ing or  in  any  way  gaining  the  management  and  control 
of  parallel  and  competing  lines.  But  in  the  direction 
of  securing  equitable  rates  railroad  competition  has 
proven  a  dismal  failure.  And  this  is  in  no  way  sur- 
prising, for  in  the  nature  of  things  railroad  carriage  is 
monopolistic  rather  than  competitive.  This  is  because 
there  must  be  many  localities  in  which  some  one  rail- 
road has  a  monopoly,  and  all  other  places  that  trade 
with  such  localities  as  are  affected  by  such  monopoly, 
must  pay,  when  trading  with  sach  localities,  transpor- 
tation charges  fixed  by  the  rules  of  monopoly,  not  com- 
petition. And  the  rules  of  monopoly  mean  not  fair 
charges,  but  the  charging  of  all  the  traffic  will  bear, 
not  charges  fixed  by  a  fair  remuneration  for  services 
rendered,  charges  sufficient  to  cover  costs  and  provide 
a  fair  profit,  but  charges  as  high  as  they  can  be  put 
without  putting  a  stop  to  the  movement  of  goods. 

Monopoly  recognizes  that  there  is  a  point  above 
which  it  cannot  raise  prices  without  so  discouraging 
trade  as  to  defeat  its  purpose  in  raising  prices— name- 
ly, the  swelling  of  profits.  And  above  this  point 
monopoly  will  not  raise  prices  unless  with  some  ulterior 
purpose    in    view.       This  point  is  what  is  referred  to 


NATIONALIZE  RAILROADS  OR  PAUPERIZE  THE  PEOPLE.  53 

when  the  fixing  of  rates  at  all  tlie  traffic  will  bear,  is 
spoken  of.  All  the  traffic  will  bear  means  all  that  can 
be  charged  without  so  restricting  the  transportation 
of  goods  that  earnings  would  be  cut  down  by  the  re- 
striction in  traffic  more  than  they  would  be  swollen  by 
the  increased  cliarges. 

Of  course  just  what  this  point  is  is  a  matter  of  judg- 
ment. Our  belief  is  that  if  railroad  passenger  rates 
were  cut  in  half  the  earnings  of  railroads  would  be  in- 
creased rather  than  diminished,  travel  increasing  be- 
cause of  such  decrease  more  than  twice,  and  enough 
over  twice  to  meet  the  added  costs  of  transportation; 
costs  that  would  be  comparatively  small  as  trains  would 
run  full  where  they  now  run  but  partially  filled,  at  no 
added  cost,  while  the  adding  of  each  additional  train 
would  reduce  the  average  costs  of  train  running,  in- 
asmuch as  there  would  be  more  trains  among  which  to 
apportion  the  costs  that  are  more  or  less  fixed. 

The  more  traffic  can  be  put  over  each  track  the 
smaller  will  be  the  cost  of  transportation  per  passenger 
and  per  ton.  And  so  it  is  that  a  bold  reduction  in 
rates  would  very  likely  so  stimulate  traffic  and  so  re- 
duce the  costs  of  transportation  per  passenger  and  per 
ton  that  although  the  rate  charged  each  passenger 
might  be  materially  less  than  the  present  cost  of  trans- 
portation it  would  be  more  than  the  new  cost,  and 
though  the  net  earnings  on  the  carriage  of  each  passen- 
ger might  be  smaller  the  gross  earnings,  because  of 
the  increased  number  of  passengers  carried,  might 
readily  be  greater.  So  our  belief  that  a  halving  of 
passenger  rates  would  increase  earnings,  prove  more 
profitable  than  present  ratas,  a  supposition  on  our  ])art 
that  is  borne  out  by  the  result  of  several  minor  experi- 
ences with  radical  rate  cutting.  But  to  make  such  a 
bold  reduction  in  rates  would  take  a  courage  that  is 
wanting  in  private  monopoly,  that  privately  managed 


54  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

railroads  may  never  be  expected  to  find,  that  govern- 
ment-owned railroads,  quite  strongly  enough  backed 
to  suffer  in  no  material  way  if  the  trial  was  disappoint- 
ing, would  not  be  without. 

So  it  is  that  our  railroads  with  a  monopoly  are  prone 
to  hold  up  rates  even  higher  than  it  is  profitable  to 
hold  them,  really  charge  more  than  the  traffic  will  bear. 
And  thus  is  trade  hindered,  is  the  accumulation  of 
wealth,  the  growth  of  the  nation  held  in  check  in  a  way 
that  it  would  not  be  if  the  railroads  were  owned  and 
operated  by  the  government. 

This  same  argument  of  railroad  rates  being  fixed  by 
what  the  traffic  will  bear  is  made  to  do  duty  in  defense 
of  railroad  monopoly  in  sundry  localities.  It  is  the  ar- 
gument that  there  is  a  point  above  which  the  railroads 
will  not  raise  rates  from  the  fear  that  to  do  so  would 
tax  enterprise  along  their  lines  out  of  existence.  And 
it  is  further  asserted  that  this  point  is  one  of  moderate 
charges,  is  indeed  indirectly  fixed  by  competition,  for 
it  is  said  that  if  rates  are  made  higher  by  the  railroads 
to  places  where  they  have  a  monopoly  than  to  places 
where  there  is  competition, trade  and  industry  will  drift 
to  those  latter  places,  while  the  industry  in  the  locali- 
ties without  competition  will  stagnate  and  the  business 
of  such  localities  fall  off  with  inevitable  loss  of  traffic 
and  earnings  to  the  railroads  so  unwise  as  to  kill  the 
goose  of  the  golden  egg. 

It  is,  moreover,  true  that  railroads  that,  though  not 
parallel,  run  through  similar  country  and  to  a  common 
terminal  and  distributive  point  are  in  a  sense  compe- 
titors. For  the  country  along  the  road  that  offers  the 
best  rates  will  build  up  the  quickest,  for  along  such 
road  industry  will  be  more  profitable  than  along  the 
other  that  lays  a  higher  tribute  on  producers  for  the 
carriage  of  their  products  to  market.  So  the  business 
of  the  road  that  acts  upon  the  principle  that  its  pros- 


NATIONALIZE  UAILKOADS  OK  PAUrEKlZE  THE  PEOPLE.  o5 

perity  is  dependent  upon  the  prosperity  of  the  people 
it  serves  will  grow  the  fastest.  And  consequently  if 
the  interests  of  the  roads  were  the  first  care  of  rail- 
road managers  they  would  strive  to  make  their  rates 
reasonable,  to  encourage  industry  and  development 
along  their  lines  in  every  legitimate  way. 

But  it  too  often  has  happened  that  the  interests  of 
certain  speculative  cliques,  not  of  the  railroads,  have 
been  the  iirst  care  of  railroad  managers.  And  then 
have  the  roads  been  used  and  with  terrible  effective- 
ness to  further  the  piratical  schemes  of  these  specula- 
tive cliques,  used  to  wreck  industries  on  one  line  of 
road  in  order  that  the  industries  on  another,  industries 
in  which  the  cliques  had  ownership,  might  l)e  given  a 
monopoly  and  made  prosperous  when  the  cliques  would 
part  with  their  proprietorship  and  reverse  the  opera- 
tion. And  what  has  been  done  in  regard  to  whole 
localities  has  been  done  with  regard  to  special  indus- 
tries picked  out  for  favoritism  and  upon  which  have 
been  conferred  such  advantages  and  special  privileges 
as  to  give  monopoly.  Thus  it  is  that  the  railroads 
have  been  used  to  pauperize  the  people. 

So  it  is  that  the  effort  to  secure  competition  between 
railroads  has  failed  to  give  to  our  people  an  equality 
of  rates  and  opportunities.  It  has  failed  because  there 
has  been  no  healthful  competition  and  failed  so  sig- 
nally that  the  defenders  of  private  ownership,  admit- 
ting its  failure,  admitting  the  failure  of  the  railroads 
under  private  management  to  cstal)lish  and  maintain 
an  equality  of  rates,  doiiumd  that  all  pretense  of  pre- 
serving competition  bo  thrown  over,  asserting  that  it 
is  competition  and  the  ])ossibitity  of  playing  off  one 
road  against  another  under  competition  that  has  re- 
sulted in  the  gross  favoritism  between  shippers  that 
has  made  the  favored  shippers  very  rich  and  well-nigh 
ruined  all  others — an  assertion  that  would  carry  more 


66  THK    GREAT    ISSUKS. 

weight  if  it  was  not  seen  that  the  railroad  managers 
were  profiting  along  with  the  favored  shippers,  a  fact 
that  irresistibly  drives  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
cutting  of  rates  is  not  forced  from  the  railroad  man- 
agers by  threats  upon  the  part  of  the  large  shippers 
and  the  playing  off  of  one  road  against  another,  but  is 
purchased  from  them  by  the  proffer  of  bribes,  by  the 
return  to  them  of  part  of  the  profits  gained  through 
the  favoritism,  the  cut  rates,  the  off-shoot  of  their  own 
dishonesty. 

So  it  is  that  the  failure  of  our  railroads  under  the 
present  system  of  private  management  to  establish  an 
equality  of  transportation  rates  cannot  be  remedied  by 
the  legalizing  of  pooling  with  a  view  to  the  prevention 
of  competition  between  our  railroads. 

But  it  is  not  only  as  the  builder  of  favoritism  and 
discrimination,  the  discrimination  that  enriches  upon 
the  one  hand  and  impoverishes  upon  the  other,  that 
our  railroad  management  has  been  a  mighty  failure. 
In  the  quite  uncalled-for  paralleling  of  roads,  the 
building  of  a  parallel  road  where  an  existing  one  was 
quite  sufficient  to  handle  all  the  business,  there  has 
been  gross  waste.  And  from  this  paralleling  the  peo- 
ple have  gained  nothing.  It  has  simply  resulted  in  the 
spending  of  double,  often  treble  the  capital  required  to 
provide  a  locality  with  all  requisite  transportation 
facilities.  And  upon  this  capital  thus  unwisely  spent 
the  people  of  such  localities  have  been  called  upon  to 
pay  interest.  So  the  very  fact  of  the  creation  of  such 
parallel  roads  has  resulted  in  keeping  rates  higher  than 
they  ought  to  be.  But  such  roads  were  created  in  good 
part  more  with  a  view  to  the  profits  to  be  made  out 
of  manipulating  their  securities  in  Wall  Street,  from 
grossly  overcapitalizing  them  and  passing  the  watered 
and  really  worthless  part  of  the  securities  off  upon  the 
investor  and  blind  speculator,  than  with  a  view  to  the 


NATIONALIZE  RAILROADS  OR  PAUPERIZE  THE  PEOPLE.  57 

profits  to  be  had  from  their  operation.  And  so  the 
unnecessary  and  really  ruinous  investments  of  capital 
in  roads  of  this  kind,  an  investment  of  capital  that 
could  have  been  made  with  infinitely  greater  profit  to 
the  community. 

Another  waste  inseparaljle  from  our  present  system 
is  the  great  expenditure  in  the  keeping  of  a  multitude 
of  accounts,  many  of  which  could  be  dispensed  with  . 
entirely  and  others  much  simplified  if  our  railroads ' 
were  managed  as  one  system  and  not  as  many.  It  is 
safe  to  say  that  the  $30,000,000  now  spent  for  admin- 
istration could  be  cut  in  half  if  the  roads  were  man- 
aged as  one.  So  here  there  is  a  sheer  waste  of  $15,- 
000,000.  Further,  by  taking  over  the  railroads,  and 
even  upon  a  basis  of  the  present  market  value  of  their 
securities,  their  present  interest  payments  of  about 
$350,000,000  a  year  could  be  cut  down  by  fully  one- 
third.  This  would  be  efl'ected  by  the  mere  substitution 
of  the  superior  credit  of  the  nation  for  that  of  the  rail- 
roads. 

Thus  we  see  how  our  railroads  in  private  hands  have 
failed  to  give  to  our  people  that  to  which  they  are  en- 
titled, an  equality  of  rates;  how  they  have  been  used  to 
enrich  the  favored  few  and  impoverish  the  multitude, 
how  capital  has  been  wasted  in  their  construction  by 
the  building  of  parallel  lines,  how  their  management 
as  a  lot  of  separate  systems  makes  the  keeping  of  an  in- 
tricate lot  of  accounts,  at  great  expense,  inevitable; 
how  great  sums  would  be  saved  annually  on  account  of 
interest  charges  if  the  roads  became  government 
property,  how  as  a  consequence  rates  could  be  reduced, 
how  such  reduction  and  especially  the  equalizing  of 
rates  would  stimulate  trade,  lead  to  great  increase  in 
traffic  and  the  cheapening  of  the  costs  of  transporta- 
tion per  passenger  and  per  ton  in  a  manner  that  would 
make  possible  a  still  further  reduction  of  rates.     In 


58  TIIK    OHEAT    ISSUES. 

short,  wc  not  only  oannot  afford  to  tolerate  the  present 
evils  of  our  railroad  management,  evils  that  have  grown 
np  with  its  management  in  private  hands,  and  that  im- 
poverish the  multitude  while  enriching  the  few,  Imt 
we  cannot  afford  to  throw  away  the  savings  that  gov- 
ernment ownership  of  our  railroads,  and  their  manage- 
ment as  one  system,  would  bring.  The  question  for  us 
is  simply  one  of  nationalize  our  railroads  or  pauperize 
our  people.  That  is  the  bald  issue  stripped  of  all  sub- 
terfuge and  that  our  people  must  decide. 


EAILROAD  MONOPOLY. 

[June  30th,  1900.] 

RAILROAD  managers  hold  men's  fortunes  in  the 
hollow  of  their  hands.  They  have  it  in  their 
power  to  give  fortunes  to  some  men  and  take 
away  the  accumulations  of  others.  And  they  exercise 
this  power — not  ever  or  even  generally  with  an  eye  to 
the  advantage  of  the  stockholders  of  the  roads  for 
which  they  act,  nor  in  many  cases  primarily  to  their 
own  profit,  but  to  the  advantage  of  the  speculative 
cliques  whose  puppets  they  often  are. 

In  the  hands  of  the  real  railroad  managers,  and  the 
nominal  managers  may  be  the  real  or  mere  puppets  of 
the  real,  is  placed  a  fearful  power,  and  they  are  sub- 
jected to  fearful  temptation  to  abuse  it,  for,  by  so  do- 
ing, can  they  win  unearned  fortunes  for  themselves. 
And  it  is  not  to  be  expected  of  mortal  man  to  stand  up- 
right in  the  face  of  such  temptation.  Give  men  the 
power  to  squeeze  fortunes  from  the  hands  of  others  and 
they  Avill  fall  to  the  temptation  to  use  it.  It  is  too 
much  to  expect  of  mortal  man  to  rise  above  such 
temptation.  Remove  temptation  from  the  paths  of 
men  and  they  will  live  upright  lives.  Just  as  we  re- 
move temptation  will  we  have  a  better  and  happier 
world.  And,  as  we  long  for  the  upliftment  of  all  man- 
kind, can  rejoice  in  the  downfall  of  none,  is  it  the  first 
function  of  good  government  to  remove  temptations 
from  the  tracks  of  men  rather  than  to  punish  those 
who  fall.  For  the  success  of  government  is  to  be 
measured  not  by  the  numbers  who  are  punished  for 
falling  to  temptation,  but  by  the  nuuibers  who  are  kept 


fiO  TUE    GRKAT   ISSUES. 

from  going  wrong.  And  the  government  that  fails  to 
exert  itself  to  remove  temptation  from  the  paths  of 
any  of  its  citizens  is  more  derelict  in  its  duty  than  the 
government  that  fails  to  punish  those  who  fall.  So 
when  we  see  railroad  managers  tempted  from  an  up- 
right course,  amassing  fortunes  by  the  use  or  abuse  of 
the  power  which  is  in  their  hands,  which  we  the  peo- 
ple wrongfully  leave  in  their  hands,  let  us  not  blame 
them  alone,  aye,  not  even  primarily,  but  take  to  our- 
selves the  chief  blame.  For  it  is  our  failure  to  do  our 
duty  by  them  and  by  ourselves,  by  removing  tempta- 
tions that  it  is  in  our  power  to  remove,  that  is  pri- 
marily responsible  for  their  fall. 

The  worst  of  all  private  monopolies  with  which  we 
have  to  contend  is  the  railroad  monopoly,  for  iipon  it 
rest  many  of  the  industrial  monopolies  that  are  so  sore- 
ly op})ressing  the  people,  exacting  the  toll  of  monopoly 
— this  toll  being  added  into  the  prices  paid  by  con- 
sumers for  trust  products,  and  deducted  from  the 
prices  paid  producers  by  the  trusts  for  the  raw  ma- 
terials they  buy.  For  monopolies  exact  toll  both  buy- 
ing and  selling,  and  buying  labor  as  well  as  the  pro- 
ducts of  labor.  It  is  power  to  exact  such  toll  that 
monopoly  gives,  and  it  is  the  railroad  monopoly  that 
has  conferred  such  monopoly  power  upon  many  indus- 
trial combines  and  trusts. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  we  speak  above  of  private 
monopolies,  of  the  railroad  monopoly  being  the  worst 
of  private  monopolies.  And  we  do  so  meaningly,  for 
if  the  railroad  monopoly  was  a  public  monopoly  it 
would  not  be  bad  at  all.  The  postoffice  is  a  public 
monopoly,  but  who  ever  heard  of  the  postoffice  op- 
pressing the  people?  Yet  who  doubts  that  the  post- 
office,  if  a  private  monopoly,  would  be  o])pressive?  And 
so  the  railroads.  Every  step  in  the  direction  of  making 
them  a  more  complete  private  monopoly,  every  step  in 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY.  61 

the  direction  of  conferring  upon  them  more  extensive 
monopoly  power — and  every  consolidation  is  a  step  in 
this  direction — must  be  expected  to  make  them  a  mo- 
nopoly more  oppressive.  But  make  them  a  public  mo- 
nopoly and  they  will  cease  to  be  oppressive,  for  then 
the  power  to  make  them  oppressive  would  rest  pri- 
marily with  those  who  would  be  oppressed  if  they  were 
made  so — the  whole  people — and  so  temptation  to 
make  them  oppressive  be  removed. 

Now  it  may  be  said,  aye,  it  is  said,  that  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  a  railroad  monopoly  in  this  country,  that 
to  s])eak  of  the  existence  of  a  railroad  monopoly  is  un- 
pardonable, demagogic — for  there  is  railroad  competi- 
tion most  bitter.  And  whore  there  is  competition 
there  cannot  be  monopoly.  Indeed,  it  is  said  that  com- 
petition is  at  the  bottom  of  our  railroad  troubles,  the 
very  root  of  rate  discriminations.  And  therefore  to 
get  rid  of  such  discriminations  we  ought  to  authorize 
pooling  between  the  railroads.  That  would  get  rid  of 
competition,  that  would  make  one  great  private  rail- 
road monopoly,  then  there  would  be  an  end  to  rate 
cutting  and  rate  discrimination.  And  so  there  would 
be  an  end  to  rate  cutting  to  get  business,  but  there 
would  not  be  an  end  of  rate  cutting  to  give  advantages 
to  favored  trusts  and  combines  in  which  railroad  man- 
agers and  the  speculative  cliques  behind  the  railroads, 
dictating  their  policy,  have  or  might  secure  an  interest. 
This  latter  kind  of  rate  cutting  would  go  on  worse  than 
ever,  for  more  than  ever  would  it  be  in  the  power  of  the 
speculative  cliques  to  use  the  railroads  effectively  as 
engines  of  speculation,  engines  to  build  up  the  pros- 
perity of  those  enterprises  in  which  they  were  inter- 
ested, wreck  those  enterprises  which  were  competitive 
and  that  they  wished  to  destroy.  And  so  the  evil  of 
rate  discrimination  would  not  cease  but  would  be  ac- 
centuated with  the  joining  of  our  railroads  in  a  way 


62  TIIK    GREAT    ISSUES. 

to  riKikc  of  lliom  one  great  privatn  railroad  monopoly. 
1'hat  evil  will  cca.sc  when  we  have  nationalized  the 
railroad  monopoly,  not  before. 

I^ut  to  return.  It  is  said  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
railroad  monopoly,  that  in  the  making  of  rates  our  rail- 
roads are  ever  held  in  restraint  by  sharp  competition, 
that  in  the  fixing  of  charges  they  have  none  of  the  pow- 
ers of  the  monopolist.  But  they  have,  nevertheless. 
That  there  is  competition  between  the  railroads  we  do 
not  deny.  But  many  are  the  points  served  by  but  one 
road,  that  are  not  reached  by  any  competitive  line. 
And  in  the  fixing  of  rates  to  such  points  the  railroads 
are  certainly  under  no  restraint  of  direct  competition. 
But  it  is  said  they  are  under  the  restraint  of  indirect 
competition,  which  is  really  quite  as  effective.  That  is 
to  say,  that  though  a  certain  territory  may  be  served  by 
but  one  road,  a  similar  territory,  wdth  similar  indus- 
tries, will  be  served  by  another.  And,  therefore,  if  the 
first  road  raises  rates  above  the  second,  it  will  put  a 
damper  upon  the  industries  along  its  line,  for  it  will 
put  them  at  a  disadvantage  in  competing  with  indus- 
tries along  the  line  of  the  second,  and,  therefore,  the 
first  road  cannot  raise  rates  above  the  second  without 
running  the  risk  of  killing  off  its  freight  business  and 
building  up  that  of  its  rival. 

Consequently,  it  is  said  that  in  the  fixing  of  rates  to 
so-called  non-competitive  points,  the  railroads  are  un- 
der the  restraint  of  this  indirect  competition.  And 
this  is  a  plausible  statement,  but  what,  in  fact,  does 
this  restraint  amount  to?  That  rates  must  not  be  put 
so  high  as  to  absorb  more  than  all  the  profits  of  pro- 
duction! It  means  simply  that  to  such  points,  where 
there  is  no  direct  competition,  the  railroads  can  and 
will,  in  railroad  parlance,  charge  all  the  traffic  will 
bear.  It  means  that  in  fixing  their  freight  rates  they 
will  take  into  consideration  possible  profits  of  those 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY.  63 

engaged  in  productive  enterprises  along  their  lines 
and  fix  rates  so  as  to  take  for  themselves  the  major 
part  of  such  estimated  profits,  leaving  the  producers 
just  enough  profit  to  encourage  them  to  struggle  on 
and  continue  to  make  freight  for  the  railroads. 

This  sounds  cold-blooded  enough,  but  it  is  just  what 
the  railroads  mean  and  set  out  to  do  when  they  talk 
of  fixing  rates  at  all  the  traffic  will  bear.  When  rates 
are  fixed  at  that  point  where  to  raise  them  higher 
would  drive  men  out  of  business,  land  out  of  cultiva- 
tion, the  railroads  have  reached  the  limit  to  which  the}' 
can  raise  rates,  the  limit  of  what  the  traffic  will  bear. 
And  this  is  the  sort  of  protection  that  points  now 
served  by  but  one  road  have  against  the  charging  of 
oppressive  rates,  have  in  the  so-called  indirect  competi- 
tion of  other  roads.  It  is  the  protection  that  says  you 
may  make  slaves,  but  shall  not  kill — shall  not  kill,  not 
because  the  roads  have  not  the  power  or  right  to  kill, 
but  because  it  would  not  pay.  And  yet  even  this  poor 
protection  is  often  wanting,  the  roads  not  being  man- 
aged with  a  view  to  the  interests  of  their  stockholders, 
but  the  profit  of  speculative  cliques  using  them,  using 
them  to  wreck.  And  these  speculative  cliques  want- 
ing to  prey  on  the  dead,  pick  up  abandoned  plants  and 
enterprises  for  a  song,  may  find  it  to  their  interest  to 
use  the  roads  to  kill,  and  finding  it  to  their  interest 
do  so. 

Now  let  us  pursue  this  question  of  railroad  monopoly 
a  little  further  by  the  aid  of  a  concrete  example.  We 
have  seen  how  it  is  said  that  even  in  the  fixing  of  rates 
to  points  served  by  but  one  road  the  railroads  enjoy  no 
monopoly  power,  that  they  are  under  the  restraint  of 
indirect  competition,  that  this  renders  the  making  of 
monopoly  rates  impossible.  Yet  we  have  seen  that  up 
to  that  hopeless  limit  of  all  the  traffic  will  bear  they 
do  enjoy  a  monopoly  power  in  the  fixing  of  rates  and  do 


64  THE    fUtEAT    ]S«IIKS. 

exercise  it.  And  so  in  fact  are  railroads,  by  the  very 
nature  of  their  being,  in  the  fact  that  they  of  necessity 
s(!rve  many  places  exclusively,  to  a  great  degree  mon- 
opolies. 

An  illustration  of  the  use  of  such  monopoly  powers 
may  not  be  necessary  to  convince  fair  readers  that  the 
railroads  do  have  and  do  exercise  such  powers,  yet  will 
not  be  out  of  place.  Between  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis 
and  Duluth  there  are  no  less  than  four  competing  lines. 
One  of  these,  and  with  somewhat  the  longer  route,  be- 
longs to  the  Northern  Pacific.  On  this  route  is  sit- 
uated the  town  of  St.  Cloud  nearer  to  Duluth  than  St. 
Paul  or  Minneapolis,  and  served,  so  far  as  Duluth 
traffic  is  concerned,  by  but  one  road.  In  short,  the 
Northern  Pacific  had  a  monopoly  of  its  Duluth  busi- 
ness, and  the  result.  It  proceeded  to  charge  St.  Cloud 
the  toll  of  monopoly.  It  made  the  rate  on  flour  from 
St.  Cloud  to  Duluth  7  cents  higher  a  hundred  pounds 
than  on  flour  from  Minneapolis  or  St.  Paul,  or  the  mill- 
ing towns  of  Anoka  and  Elk  River,  towns  further  away 
from  Duluth  but  served  by  more  than  the  one  road. 
xVnd  on  soft  coal  the  Northern  Pacific  made  the  rate 
from  Duluth  to  St.  Cloud  85  cents  per  ton  higher  than 
the  rate  to  any  of  the  four  places  mentioned  above, 
places  more  distant  than  St.  Cloud,  and  on  hard  coal 
made  a  rate  of  75  cents  a  ton  higher.  Thus  did  it  tax 
the  St.  Cloud  millers,  put  them  at  a  disadvantage  in 
competing  with  the  millers  of  St.  Paul  or  Minneapolis, 
or  Anoka  or  Elk  Eiver.  ''The  dift'erence  on  the  rate  of 
flour,"'  says  the  report  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, "was  two  or  three  times  the  profit  made  by  the 
St.  Cloud  miller  in  grinding  his  flour, and  this  difference 
in  rate  made  the  price  of  wheat  in  St.  Cloud  some  six 
cents  a  bushel  less  than  at  Minneapolis  or  Elk  Piver." 
And  as  an  inevitable  consequence  "  the  producing 
value  of  land  was  greatlv  lessened  in  the  vieinitv  of 


RAILROAD   MONOPOLY.  65 

St.  Cloud."  So  we  see  that  in  the  final  analysis  the 
farmers  had  to  pay  on  their  wheat  a  monopoly  toll  of 
six  cents  a  bushel.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  in  the 
fixing  of  rates,  to  points  where  they  are  free  from  di- 
rect competition,  the  railroads  have  none  of  the  powers 
of  the  monopolist! 

Now  the  above  case  of  discrimination  against  St. 
Cloud  was  an  open  one.  The  rates  discriminating 
against  the  St,  Cloud  millers  and  in  favor  of  those  of 
Minneapolis  and  St.  Paul  were  set  down  openly  in  the 
published  freight  tariffs.  And  grievous  injury  did  such 
open  rate  discriminations  work  to  the  St.  Cloud  millers 
and  the  farmers  contributory  to  St.  Cloud. 

Yet  such  open  rate  discriminations  are  not  those 
that  work  greatest  injury.  Secret  rate  discrimina- 
tions are  infinitely  more  numerous  and  infinitely  more 
evil,  for  they  are  not  alone  guilty  of  working  injustice 
but  of  spreading  immorality.  For  the  secret  rate  dis- 
criminations giving  to  the  recipients  an  unfair  advan- 
tage over  their  competitors  are  hidden  by  fraud  and 
deception,  rest  on  dishonesty  and  corruption. 

It  is  said  in  defense  of  the  railroad  managers  grant- 
ing secret  cuts  in  rates  that  they  are  driven  thereto  by 
the  press  of  competition,  that  large  shippers  demand  a 
cut  of  rates  and  threaten  to  take  away  their  freight, 
ship  it  over  competing  lines  if  such  cut  be  not  granted. 
And  if  refused  such  cut  they  will  take  their  freight 
away  and  ship  it  over  competing  lines,  even  though 
granted  no  more  favorable  terms.  And  then  the  road 
that  has  lost  the  freight,  anxious  to  regain  it,  suspicious 
that  the  roads  that  have  it  won  it  by  a  cut  in  rates,  will 
in  time  seek  to  win  it  back  by  offering  a  cut  in  rates. 
And  winning  it  back  its  rivals  will  exert  themselves  to 
regain  tliat  which  they  have  lost,  exert  themselves  to 
regain  by  secretly  offering  to  cut  rates.  And  thus  it 
goes  until  rates  become  utterly  demoralized,  the  large 


66  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

shippers  gain  a  great  advantage,  a  crushing  advantage, 
over  their  rivals,  and  a  monopoly  is  created. 

Such  is  the  excuse  made  for  secret  rate  cutting. 
Therefore  if  all  the  railroads  were  one,  under  one  man- 
agement, and  were  not  rivals,  such  rate  cutting  would 
cease.  And,  as  we  have  said,  upon  this  assumption  is 
founded  the  argument  for  allowing  the  railroads  to 
j)()ol  their  freight  receipts  on  competitive  traffic,  com- 
bine into  one  great  monopoly.  But  on  this  very  as- 
sumption can  be  rested  a  better  argument  for  govern- 
ment ownership  of  the  railroads.  For  with  the  gov- 
ernment owning  the  railroads  there  could  be  absolutely 
no  playing  off  of  rival  roads,  for  rival  roads  there  would 
be  none. 

This  rate  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  larger  ship- 
pers has  been  carried  to  a  fearful  extent.  The  rail- 
road situation  of  a  year  ago  was  thus  described  by  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  in  its  annual  report: 

"  Tariffs  are  disregarded,  discriminations  constantly 
occur,  the  price  at  which  transportation  can  be  ob- 
tained is  fluctuating  and  uncertain.  Railroad  man- 
agers are  distrustful  of  each  other  and  shippers  all  the 
while  in  doubt  as  to  the  rates  secured  by  their  competi- 
tors. The  volume  of  traffic  is  so  unusual  as  to  fre- 
quently exceed  the  capacity  of  equipment,  yet  the  con- 
test for  tonnage  never  seems  relaxed.  Enormous  sums 
are  spent  in  purchasing  business  and  secret  rates  ac- 
corded far  below  the  standard  of  published  charges. 
The  general  public  gets  little  benefit  from  these  reduc- 
tions, for  concessions  are  mainly  confined  to  the  heav- 
ier shippers.  All  this  augments  the  advantages  of 
large  capital  and  tends  to  the  injury  and  often  ruin  of 
smaller  dealers.  These  are  not  only  matters  of  gravest 
consequence  to  the  business  welfare  of  the  country, 
but  they  concern  in  no  less  degree  the  higher  interests 
of  public  morality." 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY.  67 

And  referring  to  this  situation  the  Commission,  in 
its  report  of  the  present  year,  adds  these  words:  "  It  i.- 
scarcely  too  much  to  say  that,  on  competitive  tratlic 
moving  between  tlie  great  centers  of  trade,  the  pub- 
lished tariff  was  little  more  than  a  basis  from  which  to 
calculate  concessions  and  discriminations,  with  the  re- 
sult that  shippers  who  failed  to  secure  these  unlawful 
favors  were  in  many  cases  forced  to  do  business  at  a 
loss  and  in  some  instances  driven  out  of  busiaess." 

Thus  was  business  morality  put  at  a  discount,  busi- 
ness immorality  at  a  premium. 

The  Commission  contends  that  the  rate  situation  is 
much  improved  to-day  as  compared  with  that  of  a  year 
ago.  For  the  railroads  have  been  so  busy  that  they 
have  been  more  concerned  with  finding  means  to  han- 
dle the  freight  offered  them  than  with  cutting  rates  to 
get  traffic  from  their  rivals.  But  that  rate  discrimi- 
nations are  not  now  extensively  enjoyed  the  Commis- 
sion does  not  contend.  ISTor  will  we  ever  be  free  from 
the  plague  of  such  discriminations  while  the  railroads 
remain  in  private  hands,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  will 
have  it  in  their  power  to  use  the  roads  for  the  promo- 
tion of  private  ends  and  having  such  power  will  be 
sorely  tempted  to  so  use  it;  so  sorely  tempted  that 
many  must  inevitably  fall.  Rate  discriminations  rising 
out  of  competition  to  win  traffic  may  cease  with  that 
competition,  with  a  pooling  arrangement  among  rail- 
roads, if  such  should  be  authorized,  but  (he  most  evil 
of  rate  discriminations  never  while  the  railroads  re- 
main in  private  hands  and  for  reasons  wo  have  Just 
hinted  at.  For  while  the  power  to  fix  freight  rates  re- 
mains in  private  hands  the  opportunities  to  use  the 
railroads  for  the  amassing  of  great  fortunes  without 
labor  will  be  great,  and  such  opportunities  will  be 
availed  of.  For  many  are  there  doing  great  shipping 
business  who  are  ready  to  hand  over  enormous  sums 


68  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

to  railroad  managers  wlio  will  grant  them  concessions 
in  freight  rates  such  as  will  save  them  greater  sums. 
And  many  arc  there  only  too  anxious  to  give  to  railroad 
managers  an  interest  in  enterprises  in  the  expectation 
that  such  managers  will  reciprocate  by  granting  cut 
freight  rates  to  such  enterprises,  and  thereby  make 
their  holdings  in  such  enterprises  valuable  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  railroads  whose  earnings  may  be  reduced 
by  such  rate  cutting.  And  when  men  are  so  tempted 
they  will  fall  to  temptation,  and  so  while  we  subject 
railroad  managers  to  temptation — and  so  long  as  we 
leave  the  railroads  in  private  hands  Avith  the  powder 
to  fix  rates  in  the  hands  of  such  managers  we  will  sub- 
ject them  to  temptation — we  cannot  hope  to  rid  our- 
selves of  the  evil  of  rate  discriminations. 

It  is  true  that  the  granting  of  such  rate  discrimina- 
tions, and  also  the  receiving  of  such  discriminations  is 
unlawful.  But  such  discriminations,  kept  secret,  are 
most  difficult  to  prove,  and  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  is  free  to  admit  that  while  it  "  has  made 
earnest  and  persistent  efforts  to  secure  the  enforcement 
of  the  penal  provisions  of  the  law  such  efforts  have 
been  mainly  unsuccessful ";  that  "  whatever  may  be 
the  reason  for  this  failure,  the  actual  fact  is  that  con- 
victions have  been  very  few  in  comparison  with  the 
number  of  prosecutions  instituted." 

True,  the  Commission  adds,  that  "  it  is  not  doubted 
that  the  penal  provisions  of  the  statute  could  be  made 
much  more  effective  by  suitable  amendment,"  though 
it  is  not  so  sanguine  as  to  assert  that  such  provisions 
could  be  made  so  effective  and  so  enforceable  that 
through  criminal  procedure  the  evil  of  rate  discrimina- 
tion could  be  stamped  out.  For  the  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  the  enforcement  of  such  penal  provisions  as  are 
or  may  be  prescribed,  are  almost  insuperable.  For  we 
virtually  are  presented  with  cases  where  the  guilty 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY.  69 

can  only  be  convicted  out  of  their  own  mouths,  all  ex- 
plicit knowledge  of  the  rate  discriminations  that  they 
are  parties  to  being  locked  up  in  their  own  breasts. 
And  you  cannot  convict  men  out  of  their  own  mouths 
if  they  have  the  wisdom  to  keep  their  mouths  shut. 
And  we  cannot  force  a  man  to  open  his  mouth  to  bear 
witness  against  himself.  It  is  indeed  proposed  to  get 
round  this  latter  difficulty  by  providing  that  what  any 
party  to  a  rate  discrimination  case  may  say  upon 
the  stand  shall  not  be  used  against  him,  and  that 
such  person  so  secured  may  then  be  obliged  to  go  upon 
the  witness  stand.  But  even  so  we  would  not  be  like- 
ly to  extract  much  information,  for  those  who  are  par- 
ties to  an  unlawful  practice,  who  have  joined  in  a  prac- 
tice involving  deceit  and  lying,  may  be  expected  to  find 
in  forgetfulness,  in  profession  of  ignorance,  a  safe  shel- 
ter on  the  witness  stand  and  not  be  deterred  from  as- 
serting a  false  ignorance,  or  shammed  forgetfulness, 
by  any  scruples  against  perjury. 

In  fine,  the  one  effective  way  to  rid  ourselves  of  the 
evil  of  rate  discriminations  is  to  remove  railroad  man- 
agers from  the  temptation  to  grant  them.  And  this 
we  can  do  by  taking  the  management  of  our  railroads 
out  of  private  hands  and  placing  such  management  in 
the  hands  of  the  government.  As  Prof.  Parsons  says: 
"  Wherever  a  vast  property  rests  in  the  hands  of  pri- 
vate interests,  the  administration  of  that  property  will 
be  more  or  less  in  the  direction  of  the  private  interest 
and  against  or  aside  from  the  public  interest.  It  is  a 
fundamental  maxim  of  business  that  property  is  to  be 
managed  in  the  interest  of  its  owners,  and,  therefore, 
the  only  way  in  which  property  can  be  jnanaged  in  the 
public  interest  is  for  the  public  to  own  it."  If  then  the 
railroads  are  a  property  that  ought  to  be  managed  in 
the  interest  of  the  public,  and  they  surely  are,  let  the 
public  own  them. 


DISCRIMINATING  AGAINST  HOME  INDUS- 
TRIES. 

[November  4th,  1899.] 

ONE  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  the  mar- 
ket quotations  for  American  grain  in  the  Liv- 
erpool and  New  York  markets  will  find  that 
there  is  very  little  difference  between  them,  that  our 
wheat  is  sold  in  Liverpool,  after  transportation  across 
the  Atlantic,  almost  as  cheaply  as  it  is  sold  in  New 
York,  and  if  he  will  inquire  into  the  ocean  transporta- 
tion rates  he  will  be  astonished  to  find  that  they 
amount,  per  bushel  of  grain,  to  more  than  the  differ- 
ence in  price  between  grain  in  Liverpool  and  grain  in 
New  York,  that  it  is  not  the  New  York  price  plus  the 
cost  of  transportation  that  makes  the  Liverpool  price, 
but  something  less.  One  would  naturally  suppose  that 
in  such  case  wheat  would  cease  to  be  sent  abroad,  for 
the  seller  could  get  more  for  it  by  selling  it  in  the  New 
York  than  in  the  Liverpool  markets.  But  all  the  same 
we  do  send  wheat  forward  in  such  case,  send  it  forward 
constantly  and  in  great  volume. 

It  is  a  curious  phenomenon,  indeed,  to  thus  see  men 
shipping  wheat  to  Liverpool  when  they  could  appar- 
ently sell  it  on  better  terms  in  New  York,  when  the 
Liverpool  price,  less  the  cost  of  transportation  thither, 
is  less  than  the  New  York  price.  And  one  not  initi- 
ated into  the  intricacies  of  the  grain  trade,  must  in  the 
first  place  be  not  a  little  nonplused  to  explain  such  a 
phenomenon — a  phenomenon  of  men  apparently  work- 
ing counter  to  all  the  laws  of  trade.  But  there  are  rea- 
sons for  all  phenomena,  though  sometimes  we  cannot 
see  them.    Indeed,  as  soon  as  we  see  such  reasons  the 


DISCRIMINATING    AGAINST    HOME    INDUSTRIES.       71 

thing  we  looked  upon  as  phenomenon  ceases  to  be  such, 
and  we  find  our  phenomenon  that  we  regarded  as  such, 
because  appearing  out  of  harmony  with  natural  laws, 
not  out  of  harmony  at  all.  And  so  as  we  throw  a  littl" 
light  on  this  grain  trade  phenomenon,  the  phenome- 
non of  men  sending  grain  to  the  Liverpool  markets 
when  apparently  they  could  get  more  for  it  by  selling  it 
in  our  own  markets,  will  such  phenomenon  disappear. 
In  the  light  of  the  facts  we  shall  give,  and  recently  laid 
liare  by  an  investigation  of  the  Interstate  Common  e 
Commission,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  nothing  at  all 
phenomenal  about  men  shipping  grain  to  Liverpool 
when  the  Liverpool  price  does  not  equal  the  Xew  York 
price  plus  the  cost  of  transportation,  that  the  railroads, 
by  freight  discriminations,  make  it  to  their  advantage 
to  do  so. 

On  September  1st,  1899,  No.  2  wheat  was  quoted  in 
the  Liverpool  markets  at  5  shillings  9^  pence  a  hundred 
weight  (112  pounds  avoirdupois),  the  equivalent  in  our 
money  and  measure  of  about  75^  cents  a  bushel,  while 
the  same  grade  of  wheat  was  quoted  in  New  York  at 
73:[  cents.  In  short,  wheat,  American  wheat,  was  bring- 
ing but  2^  cents,  or  thereabouts,  more  in  Liverpool 
than  in  New  York,  while  the  cost  of  shipping  it  from 
New  York  to  Liverpool  was  three  or  four  times  such 
sum.  Why,  then,  should  any  one  want  to  ship,  when 
the  cost  of  shipping  would  exceed  by  three  or  four 
times  the  increased  price  that  could  be  had  in  Liver- 
pool? Yet  we  know  grain  was  shipped,  and  it  is  not 
the  first  time  that  grain  has  been  shipped  under  like 
conditions.  And  three  weeks  later,  September  23d,  the 
same  grade  of  wheat  was  quoted  in  Liverpool  at  the 
equivalent  of  75f  cents  a  bushel  and  in  New  York  at 
74  cents  in  the  elevator  and  75^  cents  afloat.  To-day 
the  difference  between  the  Liverpool  and  New  York 
quotations   is    somewhat    greater,  about   4   cents,  the 


73  THE   GREAT  ISSUES. 

chartering  of  trans- Atlantic  liners  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment for  South  African  transport  service  having 
caused  a  material  rise  in  freight  rates,  but  it  is  just  as 
much  the  fact  as  before  that  the  difference  in  price  be- 
tween wheat  in  New  York  and  wheat  in  Liverpool  does 
not  equal  the  cost  of  transporting  wheat  from  New 
York  to  Liverpool.  The  difference  is  indeed  greater 
than  a  few  weeks  ago,  but  so  is  the  cost  of  transporta- 
tion. But  not  to  pick  out  any  particular  dates  for  com- 
parisons, and  take  the  averages  for  a  whole  year,  so 
that  the  effect  of  any  local  influences  such  as  tem- 
porarily disturb  prices  may  be  neutralized.  In  the  year 
1896  the  average  price  of  wheat  in  New  York  was  78.1 
cents  a  bushel,  the  average  price  of  American  grain  in 
London  27  shillings  1  penny  a  quarter,  or  less  than  the 
equivalent  of  80  cents  a  bushel  in  our  money  and  meas- 
ure, yet  we  exported  57,000,000  bushels  of  wheat  to 
Great  Britain. 

And  so  has  it  been  all  along  of  late  years.  A  couple 
more  cents  a  bushel  could,  indeed,  be  had  for  wheat  in 
Liverpool  than  in  New  York,  but  to  get  wheat  from 
New  York  to  Liverpool  would  cost  several  times  two 
cents.  But  wheat  billed  for  export  could  be  gotten  to 
New  York  from  the  wheat  fields  for  several  cents  less 
a  bushel  than  could  wheat  shipped  for  domestic  eon- 
sumption!  Here,  then,  we  have  the  enigma  and  here 
the  explanation.  The  railroads  discriminate  in  favor 
of  the  export  trade,  charge  less  for  carrying  wheat  in- 
tended for  foreign  consumption  than  for  wheat  in- 
tended for  domestic  consumption. 

A  general  advance  in  grain  freight  rates  was  billed 
to  take  effect  November  1st,  but  for  some  time  past 
the  open  rate  on  wheat  for  export  from  Mississippi 
River  points  to  New  York  has  been  12  cents  per  hun- 
dred pounds,  and  on  wheat  for  domestic  consumption, 
19^  cents,  or  7^  cents  more.    That  is,  the  domestic  mil- 


DISCRIMINATING    AGAINST    HOME    INDUSTRIES.       73 

lor  on  the  seaboard  has  been  charged  by  the  railroads 
?|  cents  a  hundred,  or  4^  cents  a  bushel  more  for 
the  transportation  of  wheat  from  Mississippi  River 
points  to  New  York  than  has  been  charged  the  British 
iniller.  Thus  is  there  discrimination  against  home  in- 
dustry— on  the  surface.  But  some  Eastern  millers  who 
are  engaged  in  the  export  trade  have  not  apparently 
lost  any  ground.  The  reasonable  assumption  is  that 
they  have  not  paid  the  full  transportation  rates  on  the 
wheat  they  have  used,  but  have  been  favored  with  a 
rebate.  Again,  these  rates  we  have  given  are  the  open 
rates,  and  proportionate  rates  with  proportionate  dis- 
crimination in  favor  of  export  traffic  are  in  force  from 
Mississippi  River  points  to  other  ports  of  shipment 
than  New  York.  What  the  real  rates  are  at  which  the 
bulk  of  the  grain  for  export  is  carried  Ave  cannot  tell. 
But  we  do  know  that  the  grain  shipping  trade  at  near- 
ly all  ports  has  become  monopolized  by  a  few  ship- 
pers, who  have  driven  numerous  competitors  of  years 
gone  by  out  of  business  and  with  whom  men  find  it  im- 
possible to  successfully  compete.  And  why?  Because 
they  cannot  get  as  good  terms  from  the  railroads,  be- 
cause to  the  favored  few,  and  those  who  monopolize 
the  business,  the  railroads  cut  the  open  rates.  In 
short,  12  cents  per  hundred  pounds  is  not  the  rate  paid 
by  the  successful  shippers;  something  less  is  paid,  and, 
of  course,  those  who  do  not  share  in  the  secret  rates 
cannot  compete.  And  so  though  19^  cents  is  the  open 
rate  on  wheat  shipped  from  Mississippi  River  points  to 
New  York  for  domestic  consumption,  it  is  not  the  rate 
paid  by  the  successful  millers  who  are  building  up  an 
export  trade  in  flour.  They  pay  something  less,  some- 
thing less  than  even  12  cents,  the  export  rate,  if  we 
can  believe  our  senses.  Those  who  are  charged  the  full 
rates  are  being,  if  they  have  not  already  been,  squeezed 
out. 


74  THE    OKEAT    ISSUES. 

But,  after  all,  wind  tluos  the  carrying  by  the  rail- 
roads of  wheat  and  other  grain  for  export  at  lower 
rates  than  grain  carried  for  domestic  consumption 
amount  to?  Obviously  it  amounts  to  a  payment  by 
the  railroads  of  a  bounty  on  exports.  And  is  the  pay- 
ment of  such  a  bounty  injurious?  Eather  is  it  not 
beneficial,  as  the  railroads  contend?  And  if  so,  why 
object  to  this  discrimination?  Such  arc  questions  that 
are  very  broad  in  their  ramifications  and  not  to  be  read- 
ily answered.  That  an  export  bounty,  such  as  in  effect 
the  railroads  now  allow  the  wheat  shipper,  will  encour- 
age exports,  we  may  for  the  time  being  concede.  But 
to  whose  advantage  will  such  bounty  redound,  the  do- 
mestic producer  or  the  foreign  consumer — the  domestic 
producer  by  enabling  him  to  get  more  for  his  produce, 
or  the  foreign  consumer  by  enabling  him  to  buy 
cheaper?  And  here  we  may  remark  that  if  it  does  not 
enable  the  foreign  consumer  to  buy  cheaper  it  will  in 
no  way  encourage  him  to  buy  more,  and  on  the  other 
hand  if  it  does  not  enable  the  producer  to  get  more 
for  his  produce  he  will  be  in  no  way  encouraged  to  pro- 
duce more.  So  it  would  appear  that  in  order  to  stimu- 
late an  export  trade  a  bounty  must  enable  the  foreigner 
to  buy  cheaper,  while  at  the  same  time  increasing  the 
returns  of  the  domestic  producer.  In  short,  the 
bounty  must  be  divided  between  the  foreign  consumer 
and  domestic  producer  in  order  to  promote  an  export 
trade;  that  is,  in  order  to  turn  trade  out  of  its  natural 
channels,  and  as  the  bounty  must  be  thus  divided  be- 
tween foreigner  and  native  to  effect  its  purpose  and 
must  be  all  paid  by  the  native,  it  is  evident  that  the 
people  who  pay  the  bounty  stand  to  lose.  And  such  a 
bounty  the  American  railroads  are  now  obliging  the 
American  people  to  pay. 

Such  is  a  general  statement,  but  now  to  come  down 
to  the  case  in  point.     What  is  the  result  of  a  bounty 


DISCRIMINATING    AGAINST    HOME    INDUSTUIKS.       7a 

on  the  export  of  wheat  such  as  our  railroads  now  allow, 
of  course  at  the  expense  of  domestic  consumers?  The 
countries  of  Western  Europe  import  from  three  to  four 
hundred  million  bushels  of  wheat  annually  to  make  up 
the  deficiencies  in  their  own  crops.  In  other  words, 
they  do  not  raise  enough  grain  by  three  or  four  hun- 
dred million  bushels  to  supply  their  own  needs.  That 
they  could  raise  enough  there  is  no  doubt,  but  compe- 
tition with  wheat  growers  of  foreign  countries,  more 
favorably  situated  for  economic  production,  has  caused 
the  abandonment  of  wheat  cultivation  on  an  extended 
scale  in  England,  where  the  farmer  is  unprotected  by 
tariff  duties,  and  retarded  the  growth  of  wheat  culti- 
vation even  in  protected  France  and  Germany. 
But  evidently  any  material  raising  of  the  price 
of  wheat  would  lead  to  increased  growing  of 
wheat  in  these  countries,  and  consequently  de- 
creased demands  for  the  wheat  of  other  countries. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  probable  that  offerings  of  for- 
eign wheat  in  those  countries  at  lower  prices  would 
lead  to  decreased  production  and  so  increased  demands 
for  foreign  wheat. 

Now  of  the  foreign  wheat  consumed  by  the  wheat 
importing  countries  of  Western  Europe  we  supply 
about  one-half;  Russia,  the  Danuljian  Provinces,  Ar- 
gentine, India,  Australia,  the  large  ])art  of  the  other 
half.  To  increase  our  export  trade  in  wheat  we  must, 
then,  do  one  of  two  things  or  both.  AVe  must  increase 
the  demand  of  Western  Europe  for  foreign  grain  by 
laying  down  our  grain  in  Europe  at  such  reduced  price 
as  will  discourage  and  further  limit  domestic  produc- 
tion in  those  countries,  or  we  must  capture  part  of  the 
grain  trade  now  held  by  Russia,  Argentine,  India,  etc., 
capture  it  by  laying  down  our  wheat  cheaper  than  they 
can.  Now  a  bounty  on  wheat  exports  will  help  us  to 
thus  lay  down  wheat  and  may  conceivably  extend  the 


76  TIIK    GREAT    ISSUES. 

iimrket  for  our  wheat  both  by  discouraf,'ing  wheat  pro- 
(hicliou  in  Western  Europe,  and  so  increasing  the  de- 
mand for  foreign  wheat,  and  by  squeezing  down  prices 
so  as  to  cause  other  wheat  exporting  countries  to  re- 
linquish to  us  a  part  of  their  trade. 

But  what  have  we  to  gain  from  a  trade  so  increased, 
that  is  by  taking  less  for  our  grain?  It  may  be  that  to 
increase  our  trade  we  would  not  have  to  take  as  much 
less  for  our  wheat  as  would  be  equivalent  to  the  whole 
bounty,  and  therefore  our  producers  would  get  more 
for  their  wheat  because  of  the  bounty.  But  if  so,  what 
must  be  the  result  of  a  bounty  on  wheat  exports  such 
as  now  allow^ed  by  our  railroads?  It  must  make  it 
possible  for  Europeans,  our  competitors  in  many 
things,  to  get  their  bread  cheaper,  must  make  it  possi- 
ble for  European  manufacturers,  availing  of  the  labor 
driven  off  the  farms,  to  scale  down  the  costs  of  produc- 
tion so  as  to  lay  down  their  products  cheaper  in  Amer- 
ica, take  a  market  from  our  mills  and  factories,  throw 
employees  of  such  factories  out  of  work,  and  conse- 
quently reduce  the  domestic  market  for  grain  while 
driving  those  unemployed  laborers  to  seek  employment 
on  our  farms,  driving  down  farm  wages,  driving  down 
costs  of  production.  And  then  would  we  have  agricul- 
tural expansion  and  manufacturing  curtailment  in 
America,  while  w^e  would  have  the  reverse  of  this  in 
Western  Europe,  w^ith  the  result  that,  the  producer  and 
consumer  being  more  widely  separated,  the  cost  of 
effecting  the  distribution  of  the  products  of  labor 
would  be  increased  with  the  inevitable  result  of  de- 
creasing the  producer's  share  in  the  product  of  his  toil, 
reducing  his  reward. 

And  so  as  viewed  from  the  ground  of  public  policy,  the 
allowing  by  the  railroads  of  the  equivalent  of  a  bounty 
on  exports  of  grain  is  indefensible.  And  this  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission  holds.     Yet  it  is  powder- 


DISCRIMINATING    AGAINST    HOME    INDUSTRIES.       77 

le.ss  to  ofFer  a  remedy.  "  The  railways  insist,"  reads 
the  report  of  the  CJommission  on  this  case,  "  that  it  is  a 
matter  of  no  consequence  to  the  Eastern  consumer 
what  rate  is  charged  the  foreigner,  provided  tiie  do- 
mestic rate  is  a  reasonable  one.  ...  To  this  proposi- 
tion we  cannot  fully  assent.  In  the  first  place,  the 
foreigner  is  to  an  extent  in  competition  with  the 
American.  Both  are  engaged  in  the  production  of  ar- 
ticles sold  in  the  same  market,  either  abroad  or  in  the 
United  States.  If  the  Englishman  can  procure  the 
necessities  of  life  cheaper  than  his  American  competi- 
tor, that  gives  him  the  advantage.  A  few  cents  per 
hundred  pounds  in  the  price  of  his  flour  would  not  be 
of  itself  a  matter  of  great  consequence,  but  the  same 
sort  of  a  preference  applied  to  all  articles  which  enter 
into  his  daily  support,  as  well  as  to  the  product  of  his 
labor,  may  determine  whether  he  or  the  American  can 
manufacture  for  our  own  market  even."  And  then 
after  some  characteristic  "  ifs  "  and  vaguely  qualify- 
ing remarks  to  the  effect  that  a  lower  rate  on  grain  for 
export  than  that  for  domestic  consumption  may  some- 
times be  justifiable,  the  report  of  the  Commission  con- 
cludes, that  "  we  cannot  concur  in  the  idea  that  any 
permanent  system  of  rates  which  renders  a  service  for 
the  foreigner  at  a  less  price  than  is  paid  by  the  Ameri- 
can can  be  just  to  the  American; "  and  then  these  sig- 
nificant words:  "  Nor  would  we  permit  the  continuance 
of  such  a  system  if  we  had  the  power  to  prevent  it." 

And  why  has  the  Commission  not  this  power?  Be- 
cause the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the 
famous  import  rate  case  of  the  Texas  and  Pacific  Rail- 
road, vs.  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  ruled 
that  the  road  had  a  right  to  transport  goods  of  for- 
eign origin  at  a  lower  rate  than  goods  of  domestic  man- 
ufacture, that  a  through  rate  on  goods  from  Liverpool 
via  New  Orleans  to  San  Francisco  lower  than  the  rate 


78  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

from  New  Orleans  to  San  Francisco,  was  justified  on 
the  ground  that  the  making  of  such  a  low  rate  was 
necessary  for  the  huilding  up  of  husiness  between 
Liverpool  and  San  Francisco,  that  on  this  ground  no 
exception  could  be  taken  to  the  railroad  charging  a 
rate  of  $3.47  per  hundred  pounds  on  dry  goods  from 
New  Orleans  to  San  Francisco  while  actually  making  a 
through  rate  with  the  steamship  lines  to  transport  the 
same  class  of  goods  all  the  way  from  Liverpool  to  San 
Francisco  via  New  Orleans  for  $1.07  per  hundred 
pounds! 

The  Supreme  Court  declared  that  in  order  to  get 
business  the  railroad  was  fully  warranted  in  making 
such  a  gross  discrimination  against  domestic  produce. 
If  conditions  are  such,  virtually  ruled  the  court,  that 
foreign  goods  cannot  be  laid  down  at  any  railroad  ter- 
minal point  cheap  enough  to  command  a  market  if  the 
railroads  charge  full  rates  on  the  transportation  of  such 
goods  from  port  of  entry,  then  it  is  proper  for  the  rail- 
roads to  allow  such  rebates  on  the  carriage  of  such 
goods  as  will  make  possible  their  importation  and  dis- 
tribution in  the  United  States  in  competition  with 
goods  of  our  own  production.  In  short,  if  our  pro- 
ducers be  taking  the  markets  from  foreign  manufac- 
turers, with  the  resiilt  that  the  business  of  the  railroads 
in  transporting  imported  goods  is  cut  into,  while  the 
business  of  railroads  carrying  domestic-made  goods  is 
increased,  it  may  be  considered  quite  justifiable  for  the 
railroads  that  may  deem  themselves  injured  to  help 
the  foreign  manufacturers  hold  the  threatened  mar- 
kets, help  them  by  reducing  rates  so  that  they  may  dis- 
tribute their  goods  ovet  American  railroads  more 
cheaply  than  American  manufacturers  can.  Thus  the 
nation  might  raise  a  customs  tariff,  to  secure  to  Ameri- 
can producers  a  certain  market,  and  the  railroads  step 
in  and  neutralize  such  by  discriminating  in  favor  of  the 


DISCRIMINATING    AGAINST   HOME    INDUSTRIES.       79 

foreign  producer  by  means  of  a  reduced  transportation 
tariff.  And  such  acts  of  American  railroads,  making 
nugatory  acts  of  the  American  Congress,  the  Supreme 
Court  held  to  be  lawful. 

Such  was  the  effect  of  this  remarkable  decision, 
which,  rightly  enough,  reasons  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission,  "  must  apply  equally  to  export 
traffic,  and  upon  its  authority  we  are  constrained  to 
hold  that,  as  matter  of  law,  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Act  does  not  prohibit  a  rail  carrier  from  making  a 
through  rate  from  a  point  within  the  United  States  to 
a  foreign  destination,  of  which  its  division  shall  l)e  less 
than  the  amount  charged  for  the  corresponding  trans- 
portation of  domestic  merchandise  to  the  port  of  ex- 
port." 

Yet  do  we  ask  with  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission: "  What  reason  is  there  why  the  foreigner  who 
eats  our  wheat  should  have  it  transported  from  the 
Mississippi  Eiver  to  New  York  for  12  cents  a  hundred 
pounds,  while  the  American  is  obliged  to  pay  19^ 
cents  for  the  same  service  ?  "  And  we  must  answer 
there  is  none,  none  save  our  Supreme  Court  says  he 
may. 

But  to  pass  this  by,  to  take  up  a  much  more  flagrant 
system  of  discrimination,  discrimination  destructive  of 
an  American  industry.  The  railroads  make  a  reduced 
rate  on  wheat  shipped  for  export,  and  that  is  equival- 
ent to  the  allowing  of  a  bounty.  Why  should  they  not 
do  the  same  by  flour?  Not  to  do  so  is  to  discriminate 
against  the  American  miller,  to  encourage  the  grinding 
of  our  wheat  destined  for  consumption  abroad  in  Brit- 
ish mills  not  our  own.  Yet  our  railroads  do  just  this. 
Well  may  we  ask  why.  Is  it  merely  because  the  selling 
of  our  wheat  in  the  grain  rather  than  as  flour  insures 
to  them  more  traffic,  there  being  necessarily  more 
freight  if  our  wheat  goes  forward  in  the  grain  than  in 


80  .    THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

the  flour,  or  is  it  because  the  railroad  managers  have 
some  personal  interest  in  encouraging  the  export  of 
wheat  rather  than  flour,  being  interested  with  the 
great  shippers  of  wheat,  having  arrangements  with 
them  for  the  division  of  rebates?  But  such  questions 
must  remain  unanswered.  Let  us  then  pass  to  a  con- 
sideration of  the  facts,  or  rather  so  much  of  the  facts 
as  laid  bare  by  the  recent  investigation  of  the  Inter- 
state ('Ommerce  Commission.  From  the  report  of  this 
commission  on  these  export  grain  rates  we  quote: 

"  Considering  the  seaboard  miller  as  compared  with 
the  English  miller  who  grinds  American  wheat,  both 
must  derive  their  supply  of  the  raw  material  from  the 
same  source.  The  American  miller  at  New  York  pays 
the  domestic  rate,  which  is  from  the  Mississippi  Eiver 
19^  cents  per  hundred  pounds,  while  the  English 
miller  transports  his  wheat  from  the  same  point  to  New 
York  at  the  rate  of  12  cents  per  hundred  pounds. 
Clearly,  therefore,  the  Englishman  has  an  advantage  by 
reason  of  this  difference  in  freight  rate  over  the  Amer- 
ican of  7^  cents  per  hundred.  It  also  costs  the  American 
miller  more  to  transport  his  product  across  the  ocean 
than  it  does  the  English  miller  to  transport  his  wheat; 
but  this  is  a  matter  with  which  we  are  not  concerned. 
Plainly  the  American  miller  at  New  York  pays,  if  he 
pays  the  published  domestic  rate,  7^  cents  per  hundred 
pounds  more  than  the  Englishman  in  bringing  his 
wheat  to  the  seaboard,  and  is  therefore  placed  at  a  dis- 
advantage to  just  that  amount." 

But,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  there  has  been  no 
falling  off  in  exports  of  flour  from  the  seaboard  mills, 
and  the  reasonable  supposition  is  that  such  mills  do 
not  pay  the  open  rate,  that  the  discrimination  against 
them  in  railroad  rates  is  apparent  not  real.  And  this, 
too,  is  the  conclusion  of  the  Commission.  But  with 
the  interior  mills  the  case  is  very  different,  they  are 


DISCRIMINATING    AGAINST    HOME    rNDUSTRIES.       81 

losing  ground  in  the  export  trade,  the  discrimination 
against  them  is  real  and  destructive.  "  Chicago,"  we 
read  in  the  report  of  the  Commission,  "  may  be  taken 
as  a  type  of  the  interior  milling  situation,  and  to  illus- 
trate this  situation  we  may  select  one  Chicago  mill. 
This  mill  had  a  capacity  of  about  1,500  barrels  a  day. 
The  wheat  which  it  ground  was  entirely  spring  wheat, 
and  came  from  beyond  the  Mississippi  River.  In  its 
export  business  it  was  in  competition  with  the  English 
miller  who  obtained  his  wheat  from  the  same  fields. 
The  rate  paid  by  the  Chicago  mill  from  the  Mississippi 
River  to  Chicago  was  5  cents  per  hundred  pounds.  That 
paid  by  the  English  miller  upon  the  same  wheat  from 
the  Mississippi  River  to  Chicago  was  1.8  cents  per  hun- 
dred pounds  (that  is,  the  proportion  of  the  through 
export  rate  of  12  cents  allowed  the  roads  running  from 
the  Mississippi  to  Chicago).  From  Chicago  to  Xew 
York  the  Chicago  miller  paid  upon  his  manufactured 
product  17  cents,  while  the  English  miller  paid  upon 
his  raw  product  10.2  cents,  making  a  total  difference 
in  cost  at  New  York  against  the  Chicago  miller  of  10 
cents  per  hundred  pounds." 

Now  this  is  not  quite  a  fair  statement  of  the  case, 
for  the  English  miller  has  to  pay  the  freight  forward 
from  Chicago  on  five  pounds  of  raw  product  where  the 
Chicago  miller  has  to  pay  freight  upon  but  four  pounds 
of  manufactured  product,  it  taking  some  five  pounds  of 
wheat  to  make  four  pounds  of  flour.  Therefore,  the 
discrimination  in  favor  of  the  British  over  the  Chicago 
miller  is  about  7^  cents  per  hundred  pounds.  Further, 
the  Milwaukee  millers  showed  the  Commission  "by 
many  illustrations  drawn  from  actual  rates,  a  discrimi- 
nation of  from  4  to  11  cents  per  hundred  pounds." 
And  a  like  story  had  the  millers  of  all  interior  points 
to  tell,  all  save  the  millers  of  Minneapolis  and  contin- 
gent points  who  enjoy  an  export  rate  on  flour,  a  lower 


82  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

rale  on  flour  shipped  Kast  for  export  than  flour 
shipped  P^ast  for  consumption.  I3ut,  generally  speak- 
ing, the  rate  upon  both  flour  for  export  and  flour  for 
domestic  use  is  the  same,  and  also  the  same  as  is  the 
rate  on  wheat  for  domestic  use,  while  the  rate  on  wheat 
for  export  is  much  less.  And  so  against  all  the  millers 
of  the  interior,  save  those  of  the  Minneapolis  territory, 
there  is  railroad  discrimination  of  the  grossest  kind, 
discrimination  that  is  destructive  of  their  trade,  for 
the  profits  of  their  competitors  arc  less  than  the  dis- 
criminations, and  so  with  such  discriminations  to  work 
against  there  is  left  no  profit  for  them  in  the  trade. 

And  so  are  our  railroads  discriminating  against  our 
home  industries  and  in  favor  of  British,  and  our  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission  unable  to  prevent  it,  im- 
potent, admittedly  powerless.  When  will  such  de- 
structive discrimination  be  no  more,  when  will  there 
be  equality  of  rates  offered  by  our  railroads,  when  will 
men  be  accorded  equal  chances?  Our  experience 
teaches  us  not  so  long  as  our  railroads  are  run  for  the 
promotion  of  private  interests  regardless  of  the  general 
weal,  and  they  will  be  so  run  so  long  as  they  are  left 
to  be  managed  and  operated  by  private  interests.  Nor 
is  it  reasonable  to  expect  anything  else.  "When  public 
ownership,  government  operation  and  management 
takes  the  place  of  private,  then,  and  not  before,  may 
we  look  for  better  things. 


AN  ALLEGORY. 

[June  4th,  1H98.] 

BEYOND  the  waves  of  a  tempestuous  ocean,  three 
thousands  of  miles  from  nowhere,  there  lay  a 
vast  continent  of  untold  natural  resources,  of 
agricultural  resources  unsurpassed,  of  mineral  wealth 
unmeasured,  a  continent  peopled  by  a  race  of  indus- 
trious, energetic  and  inventive  people,  well  versed  in 
the  arts  of  agriculture,  mining  and  manufacture,  well 
skilled  in  reading  nature's  secrets,  following  nature's 
ways  and  making  the  most  of  the  great  natural  re- 
sources of  their  country,  and  withal  a  people  inherent- 
ly jDrogressive,  ever  intent  on  climbing  to  a  yet  higher 
plane,  making  labor  more  productive,  and  their  com- 
mand over  the  boundless  forces  of  nature  greater  and 
greater.  A  virgin  soil  of  unsurpassed  fertility  wel- 
comed the  husbandman  and  encouraged  him  to  fresh 
efforts,  while  hidden  away  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth 
were  vast  stores  of  coal  and  iron,  copper  in  deposits  of 
marvelous  richness,  lead  and  nickel  and  the  lesser 
metals  in  abundance,  while  the  rugged  mountain 
ranges  of  this  marvelous  continent  bore  veins  and 
deposits  of  the  precious  metals  of  a  fabulous  richness. 

Thus  hidden  away  in  the  earth  were  vast  stores  of 
mineral  and  agricultural  wealth,  a  nascent  wealth  only 
waiting  to  be  uncovered  and  developed  to  become  ap- 
proprial)le  by  man  to  his  uses,  the  promotion  of  his 
comfort  and  happiness.  And  in  thus  developing  the 
unparalleled  resources  at  their  disposal  the  people  of 
this  continent  had  made  great  progress.  Under  tillage 
they  brought  the  fertile  soil  until  there  was  no  dream 


84  THE    GREAT   ISSUES. 

of  scarcity,  but  such  an  abundance  of  food  raised  that 
much  was  spared  to  feed  the  peoples  of  other  lands. 
There  was  a  period  in  the  history  of  this  continent 
when  food  was  often  scarce,  when  the  fear  of  want  and 
famine  was  ever  present,  when  almost  all  men  were 
tilling  the  soil.  But  that  time  was  long  since  passed. 
Year  after  year  a  lesser  and  lesser  proportion  of  the 
people  were  occupied  in  tilling  the  soil,  yet  year  after 
year  a  greater  abundance  of  food  was  raised.  It  was 
because  agricultural  labor  became  more  productive,  be- 
cause better  soils  were  brought  under  cultivation  year 
after  year,  because  better  instruments  of  tillage  and 
more  economical  means  of  harvesting  were  brought 
into  use. 

All  this  came  with  the  accumulation  of  wealth.  At 
first  the  lighter  though  poorer  soils  were  cultivated. 
They  were  cultivated  because  the  needs  of  the  people 
were  pressing,  because  there  was  little  surplus  produc- 
tion of  food  that  those  who  did  not  raise  their  own  food 
could  depend  upon.  Consequently  nearly  all  men  had 
to  engage  in  raising  crops  and  they  had  to  occupy  those 
soils  that  could  be  readiest  cultivated  and  brought 
under  tillage  at  once.  These  soils  were  of  course  the 
lighter  soils  on  which  grew  little  underbrush  amidst 
the  forest  trees,  soils  in  which  the  efforts  of  the  hus- 
bandmen were  not  handicapped  by  roots,  and  soils  that 
needed  no  artificial  drainage.  Thus  the  heavier  and 
richer  soils  were  passed  by,  passed  by  because  they 
could  not  be  cleared  and  a  crop  raised  the  same  year, 
because  several  years'  time  was  required  before  such 
soils  could  be  brought  into  a  condition  fit  for  tillage. 
Therefore  the  poorer  soils  were  at  first  cultivated. 
And  then  it  was  that  there  was  scarcity  and  fear  of 
scarcity,  then  that  agricultural  labor  was  least  pro- 
ductive. 

But  as  year  followed  year,  and  the  lands  first  tilled 


AN    ALLEGORY.  85 

became  more  readily  tillable,  ami  at  the  same  time,  be- 
cause of  better  tillage,  more  productive,  more  and 
more  food  was  produced  proportionately  to  the  num- 
ber of  people.  Thus  the  surplus  food  that  each  hus- 
bandman produced  beyond  his  own  needs  grew,  as  it 
grew  it  became  available  for  the  support  and  therefore 
employment  of  men  to  bring  the  more  fertile  lands 
under  cultivation,  of  other  men  who  would  oc- 
cupy themselves  with  making  farm  tools  and  of  still 
others  occupying  themselves  with  the  manufacture  of 
clothing,  the  spinning  of  wool  and  weaving  of  cloth 
that  had  before  been  done  on  the  farm,  but  with  primi- 
tive facilities,  and  at  much  greater  expenditure  of 
labor.  Thus  did  labor  become  more  productive,  steam 
and  electricity,  heretofore  unrevealcd  forces  of  nature 
were  harnessed,  the  arts  of  metallurgy  were  mastered. 
So  the  nascent  wealth  of  the  earth,  the  wealth  that  na- 
ture offers  to  those  who  work  in  harmony  with  her 
laws,  the  wealth  of  the  soil  and  the  bowels  of  the  earth 
was  uncovered  and  appropriated.  Blessed  with  a  ter- 
ritory of  such  great  natural  wealth,  and  developing  the 
natural  resources  with  a  marvelous  successfulness  and 
rapidity  as  the  result  of  diligent  application  to  master- 
ing the  laws  and  forces  of  nature,  the  people  of  this 
continent  produced  and  gathered  wealth  on  a  scale 
never  before  approached.  The  soil,  under  the  indus- 
trious and  skilled  cultivation  of  a  smaller  and  smaller 
proportion  of  the  total  number  of  people,  produced 
more  than  an  abundance  of  food  for  all,  the  mineral 
wealth  of  the  country  was  uncovered,  mines  were 
opened  capable  of  producing  more  coal  and  iron  than 
there  was  demand  for,  furnaces  and  rolling  mills  were 
in  existence  capable  of  meeting  all  the  wants  of  the 
people  for  iron  and  steel,  woolen  and  cotton  mills  of  a 
productive  capacity  greater  than  the  demands  of  the 
people  were  in  existence. 


8G  TilH    (ilJHAT    ISSUES. 

Thus  thorc  should  have  been  an  abunrlance  of  food, 
an  abundance  of  clotliing  for  all,  for  an  abundance  was 
or  could  be  produced.  Yet  there  was  not  abundance. 
Thousands  of  men  of  industrious  habits,  skillful  work- 
men, could  find  no  work,  their  families  suffered  from 
want  of  food,  were  without  sufficiency  of  clothing. 
Year  after  year  the  farmer  produced  more  food,  year 
after  year  his  labor  became  more  productive,  yet  the 
recompense  for  his  labor  became  less  and  less.  From 
his  labor  his  country  grew  richer  but  in  the  enrich- 
ment of  his  country  he  did  not  share.  So  also  did 
there  come  a  greater  and  greater  use  of  more  and  more 
economical  machinery,  and  therewith  the  labor  of  the 
factory  hand  became  more  and  more  productive.  He 
produced  more  wealth,  but  proportionately  to  the 
wealth  produced  got  less. 

So  there  was  a  country  peopled  by  an  industrious 
and  wealthy  people,  a  people  of  unequaled  productive 
power,  yet  a  country  where  the  few  reaped  the  benefits 
of  the  increased  productiveness  of  labor,  where  the 
many  sowed  but  did  not  reap,  where  the  few  gathered 
the  wealth,  the  industrious,  poverty.  Naturally  where 
there  should  have  been  happiness  there  was  discontent, 
where  there  should  have  been  universal  abundance  and 
comfort  there  was  general  scarcity  and  suffering.  Thus 
a  people  blessed  by  nature  found  themselves  under  a 
curse.  They  saw  that  their  efforts  were  cursed,  and 
as  they  were  not  cursed  by  nature  they  must  be  cursed 
by  man.  And  this  curse  they  found  in  the  shape  of  a 
toll  exacted  on  all  interchanges  of  the  surplus  products 
of  labor  and  by  those  who  rendered  nothing  in  return, 
by  those  who  did  not  facilitate  such  interchanges  but 
retarded  them. 

These  arbitrary  tolls  being  dexterously  mixed  up 
with  tolls  charged  for  services  actually  rendered  had 
long  passed  unnoticed.     Thus  had  certain  persons  been 


AN    ALLEGORY.  87 

granted  the  right  to  build  and  operate  the  steam  high- 
ways of  the  nation.  For  the  transportation  of  freight 
and  passengers  over  these  highways  they  were  freely 
given  the  right  to  charge  tolls,  and  thus  recompense 
themselves  for  the  costs  of  building,  keeping  up  and 
operating  such  highways.  That  they  should  be  so  paid 
for  services  rendered  in  the  transportation  of  goods 
and  passengers  was  right  and  just.  No  one  complained. 
But  it  happened  that  they  charged  tolls  that  were 
more  than  ample  to  recompense  them  for  their  outlay, 
charges  that  were  more  than  fair  consideration  for  ser- 
vices rendered. 

In  brief,  they  added  to  their  charges  simply  because 
they  had  a  monopoly,  charged  the  people  for  the  use 
of  privileges  that"  the  people  had  given  them.  Part  of 
their  charges  were  for  services  rendered,  part  were  toll 
exacted  by  monopoly.  But  mixed  up  together  it  was 
hard  to  pick  out  what  were  just  charges,  what 
monopoly  charges.  This  was  made  increasingly  diffi- 
cult by  the  way  in  which  the  railroads  kept  their  capi- 
tal accounts.  For  example,  they  universally  issued 
stocks  and  bonds  purporting  to  represent  a  greater  in- 
vestment of  money  than  ever  went  into  the  construc- 
tion of  the  roads.  In  a  word,  they  unscrupulously,  not 
to  say  fraudulently,  watered  their  capital  accounts  so 
that  it  was  made  to  appear  that  the  roads  cost  two 
times  or  more  what  they  actually  did.  And  so  what 
was  an  exorbitant  return  on  the  real  cost  of  a  road  was 
often  made  to  appear  quite  inadequate. 

Of  course,  those  men  to  whom  this  watered  stock 
was  issued  grew  rich,  while  the  industrious  classes,  hav- 
ing to  pay  a  toll  to  monopoly  on  the  interchange  of  the 
products  of  their  labor  for  the  products  of  others,  were 
deprived  of  the  full  profits  of  industry.  Those  persons 
to  whom  this  watered  capital  was  issued  by  the  rail- 
roads were  those  who  did  what  was  called  "  financing 


88  TIIK    dHKAT    ISSUKK. 

the  roads,"  and  the  railroad  managers.  Thus  the 
railroad  managers  issued  watered  stocks  and  other  rep- 
resentatives of  capital  to  themselves  and  to  those  pro- 
moters and  bankers  who  helped  them  in  the  operation. 

But  this  was  far  from  the  worst  side  of  railroad  man- 
agement. The  worst  was  management  so  as  to  stifle 
some  enterprises  and  enrich  others,  so  as  to  bring  pros- 
perity to  some  localities,  stagnation  and  destruction  to 
others.  This  was  done  systematically.  To  one  enter- 
prise in  which  the  railroad  cliques  had  a  part  owner- 
ship interest,  or  to  one  in  which  railroad  managers 
were  given  an  indirect  interest  in  return  for  special 
privileges,  certain  favors  in  transportation  rates  and 
services  were  granted  while  all  other  competitive  en- 
terprises were  discriminated  against.  That  is,  to  the 
favored  enterprises,  lower  freight  rates  were  given, 
both  in  the  gathering  of  raw  materials  and  in  the  mar- 
keting of  the  products,  than  were  charged  their  com- 
petitors. Of  course,  the  favored  enterprises  could  pro- 
duce cheaper  and  distribute  cheaper  than  their  compe- 
titors, so  undersell  and  bankrupt  them.  This  they  did 
for  it  was  to  their  interest.  The  favored  cliques  then 
stepped  in  and  bought  up  the  bankrupted  properties. 
So  doing  they  gathered  the  savings  of  others'  indus- 
try, and  at  the  same  time  gained  a  monopoly. 

Possessed  of  the  properties  that  once  belonged  to 
competitors  they  removed  the  discriminations  against 
such  properties,  and  that  had  made  them  unprofitable. 
Of  course,  such  properties  again  became  profitable, 
while  all  the  clique  enterprises,  thus  possessed  of 
monopoly  through  railroad  aid,  built  up  their  profits 
higher  and  higher  by  the  charge  of  monopoly  prices. 
Thus  fortunes  gathered  rapidly  on  this  turn  of  the 
wheel,  but  they  were  gathered  by  cutting  down  trans- 
portation rates,  and  so  at  the  cost  of  the  railroads.  If 
the  cliques  had  then  possessed  the  railroad  securities. 


AN   ALLEGOBY.  89 

of  course  this  loss  would  have  fallen  upon  them.  But 
they  were  not  so  short-sighted  as  to  put  themselves 
into  the  position  of  robbing  Peter  to  pay  Paul,  or 
rather  self  to  enrich  self.  Before  they  wrecked  any 
railroad  by  robbing  it  they  took  good  care  to  sell  their 
ownership  in  it,  or  at  least  that  part  of  it  represented 
by  stock  and  junior  bonds.  When  they  put  up  rates  on 
a  line  of  road  with  the  view  of  crushing  out  the  enter- 
prises on  that  road  that  were  competitors  of  the  clique- ' 
owned  enterprises,  the  earnings  of  such  road  were  nat- 
urally swollen,  for  the  earnings,  the  very  vitals  of  the 
competing  industries,  were  sapped  to  this  end.  This 
made  interest  payments  and  dividends  on  watered 
capital  possible,  gave  an  apparent  value  to  the  stock 
and  junior  bonds,  and  caused  such  securities  to  appre- 
ciate in  selling  value,  a  deluded  public  being  tempted 
to  buy.  And  then  the  cliques  sold.  As  a  result  the 
public  had  the  securities  of  the  road  when  the  cliques 
wrecked  it,  and  thus  were  investors  stripped  of  their 
accumulations. 

Of  course,  the  low  rates  that  wrecked  the  railroad 
made  the  enterprises  along  it,  and  favored  by  such  cut 
rates,  profitable.  As  a  consequence  they  became  salable 
at  appreciated  values  and  the  cliques  were  enabled  to 
dispose  of  them  at  a  good  profit  and  buy  up  the 
wrecked  road  with  the  proceeds.  Then  the  operation 
was  repeated. 

And  so  it  went  on  until  the  wealth  of  the  country 
became  centralized  in  the  hands  of  a  few  railroad 
cliques.  They  made  the  curse  that  blighted  the  pros- 
perity of  an  otherwise  blessed  people,  they  made  the 
curse  that  shut  off  men  from  the  enjoyment  that 
should  have  come  with  the  increased  productiveness  of 
their  labor. 

Awakening  to  this,  at  last,  this  people  resolved  to 
break  the  curse  put  upon  them  by  these  cliques.     As 


90  TIIK    CiHKAT    ISSUES. 

;in  cntoriiig  wedge  they  resolved  to  build  a  railroad  of 
their  own  across  the  continent,  a  highway  that  would 
serve  the  public  not  the  cliques,  that  would  promote 
the  interchange  of  commodities  and  stimulate  industry 
by  insuring  to  all  men  the  fruits  of  their  labor.  There 
was  ample  laljor  in  the  country  and  out  of  employ  to 
make  the  cuttings,  build  up  the  fillings,  grade  the  road- 
bed and  lay  the  track;  there  were  rolling  mills  without 
employment  quite  capable  of  rolling  the  rails,  there 
were  mines  of  iron  capa])le  of  supplying  the  needed 
iron  ore,  mines  opened  and  ready  to  supply  the  coal  to 
smelt  it,  above  all  were  there  idle  miners  only  too 
anxious  to  mine  the  needed  iron  and  coal.  So,  too, 
were  there  masons  and  bricklayers  innumerable  who 
were  ready  to  do  the  needed  work,  so  there  were  bridge 
builders,  locomotive  and  car  builders,  and  men  ready 
to  make  all  kinds  of  track  supplies. 

Thus  within  itself  the  country  had  all  the  resources 
to  build  the  road.  The  farmers  were  only  too  anxious 
to  raise  the  food  that  the  men  employed  in  construct- 
ing such  road  might  need,  and  they  were  more  than 
capable  of  producing  food  in  abundance.  And  so  could 
the  manufacturers  of  clothing  easily  keep  the  men  who 
would  be  engaged  in  such  work  of  construction,  fully 
clothed.  Such  manufacturers  were  without  work  sim- 
ply because  the  men  who  would  thus  be  given  employ- 
ment Avere  without  work  or  money  and  unable  to  buy 
the  clothes  they  needed.  Simply  because  the  workman 
out  of  work  was  stinting  himself  and  family  in  food, 
simply  because  he  could  not  clothe  himself  and  his  de- 
centl}^,  simply  because  the  farmer  could  not  find  re- 
munerative markets  for  his  products  or  the  manufac- 
turer for  his,  the  productive  force  of  the  country  was 
restricted.  Such  was  the  condition  when  the  people  of 
this  great  unnamed  continent,  a  people  blessed  by  na- 


AN   ALLEGORY.  91 

ture,  cursed  by  the  greed  of  man,  resolved  to  build  a 
railroad  across  their  continent. 

Then  to  the  government  came  an  agent  of  a  foreign 
banking  house,  and  on  behalf  of  that  house,  offered  to 
loan  tlie  money,  at  the  rate  of  3  per  cent.,  needed  to 
])uild  the  road.  But  the  wise  man  whom  the  people 
had  put  at  the  head  of  their  government  replied: 

"  Do  you  propose  to  import  an  army  of  aliens  and 
loan  us  their  labor  to  grade  the  road  and  build  the 
roadbed  ?  " 

"  Oh,  no  ! "  was  the  reply,  "  that  your  own  idle  peo- 
ple will  supply;  they  Avill  make  the  cuttings  and  the  fill- 
ings, they  will  construct  the  road." 

"  What  then  do  you  propose  to  loan  us,"  inquired 
the  wise  man,  "  the  steel  rails,  or  the  bridge  structures, 
or  the  track  supplies,  or  the  rolling  stock  ?  " 

"  Oh,  no!  all  that  your  own  people  will  supply;  they 
will  make  the  rails,  they  the  bridges,  they  the  track 
supplies  and  rolling  stock,  they  will  build  the  road." 

"  What  then  will  you  do  ?  "  queried  the  wise  man. 

"  Why,  supply  the  money,  to  pay  the  labor,  to  buy 
the  rails,  the  locomotives,"  was  the  reply. 

"  And  that  will  the  people  supply  for  themselves," 
w^as  the  response.  "  For  that  they  will  pay  you  noth- 
ing. They  create  the  road,  with  wealth  of  their  crea- 
tion it  must  be  built,  with  their  capital  not  yours  will 
it  be  constructed.  To  build  the  road  you  offer  no  capi- 
tal, you  offer  but  the  representative  of  capital.  And 
if  our  people  must  create  and  contribute  the  capital 
they  can  create  the  representative  of  capital,  the 
money  with  which  to  pay  the  labor,  to  buy  the  rails, 
the  locomotives,  the  cars.  ^loney  is  but  the  mere  rep- 
resentative by  which  wealth  is  exchanged,  by  which  the 
product  of  one  man  is  exchanged  for  the  product  of 
another,  and  the  people  wlio  can  create  the  wealth 
need  not  borrow  the  instruments  l>y  which  it  may  ])e 


92  THE    ORE  AT    ISSUES. 

exchanged.  Those  instruments  they  can  make  for 
themselves,  those  instruments  they  shall  now  make. 
The  government  will  issue  notes,  each  of  which  shall 
read,  '  This  note  will  be  received  by  the  government 
railroad  at  its  face  in  payment  for  freight  and  passen- 
ger charges  and  by  the  National  Treasury  for  all  taxes 
and  public  dues.^  This  will  give  these  notes  an  ex- 
change value  at  once,  this  wall  make  them  pass  as  cur- 
rent money,  this  will  make  them  acceptable  by  all  mer- 
chants having  dues  to  pay  to  the  government,  and  be- 
ing so  acceptable  workmen  w'ill  gladly  accept  them  in 
payment  for  their  labor,  knowing  that  they  can  ex- 
change such  notes  for  the  food  and  clothing  that  they 
need;  the  maker  of  steel  rails  will  be  only  too  glad  to 
take  them  for  his  product,  knowing  that  he  can  pay 
labor  with  such  notes  and  meet  the  other  costs  of  pro- 
duction. So  the  issue  of  these  notes  will  give  employ- 
ment to  labor,  will  make  increased  demand  for  the  pro- 
ducts of  farm  and  factory  and  mine  by  those  who  are 
now  half  starved  and  half  clothed;  there  will  come 
prosperity  for  farmer  and  manufacturer  and  wage- 
earner  alike;  the  railroad  will  be  built  simply  by  stimu- 
lating the  productive  abilities  of  the  nation  into  ac- 
tivity, and  built  by  the  exercise  of  energies  that  would 
not  otherwise  be  exercised,  the  employment  of  labor 
that  would  otherwise  be  idle. 

"  When  the  notes  issued  for  this  purpose  are  re- 
ceived by  the  government  either  for  taxes  or  dues  or 
later  in  payment  for  the  transportation  of  freight  or 
passengers  over  the  government  road,"  continued  the 
wise  man,  "  they  will  be  effectually  redeemed.  But  to 
cancel  all  such  notes  when  received  in  payment  of 
taxes  would  inevitably  cause  a  great  hole  in  the  pub- 
lic revenues,  a  hole  that  would  have  to  be  filled  by  new 
taxes.  If  this  was  done  it  would  amount  to  building 
the  road  by  general  taxation.    Again,  to  cancel  all  such 


AN    ALLEGORY.  93 

notes  when  received  for  the  carriage  of  freight  or  pas- 
sengers by  the  government  road  would,  if  a  large  part 
of  the  receipts  were  in  such  notes,  entail  a  deficit  in 
the  operation  of  the  road;  for  about  two  thirds  of  the 
receipts  of  railroads,  on  a  basis  of  present  average 
transportation  rates,  arc  al)sorbed  to  meet  operating 
expenses.  The  other  third  remain  as  profits.  Therefore 
the  notes  issued  by  the  government  to  pay  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  road,  and  received  in  payment  for 
transportation  services,  cannot  be  canceled  in  a  ratio 
of  more  than  one-third  of  the  notes  received  without 
causing  a  deficit  which  would  have  to  be  met  by  gen- 
eral taxation.  That  portion  of  the  notes  received  for 
transportation  that  would  be  required  to  meet  the 
costs  of  transportation  would  have  to  be  reissued  when 
received,  that  portion  receivea  as  profits  on  transporta- 
tion might  be  canceled.  Therefore  it  shall  be  pro- 
vided that  these  notes  shall  be  receivable  at  their  face 
value  for  all  taxes  and  public  dues  and  government 
railroad  charges,  and  when  received  for  taxes  or  public 
dues  shall  be  reissued;  when  received  by  the  govern- 
ment road  such  proportion  shall  be  reissued  as  will  meet 
the  costs  of  operation,  such  proportion  as  represents 
profits  shall  be  retired.  Built  and  operated  after  this 
manner  the  road  will  pay  for  itself  in  a  few  years,  and 
at  the  end  be  the  property  of  the  people.  Built  by 
borrowed  money  the  people  would  pay  for  it  within  a 
few  years,  but  at  the  end  it  would  be  the  property  of 
the  cliques." 

So  said  the  wise  man  to  the  agent  of  the  foreign 
banking  house,  who  proposed  that  in  breaking  the  curse 
of  the  railroad  cliques  the  people  should  shoulder  the 
curse  of  a  bonded  slavery.  Thus  those,  who,  seeing  the 
people  bestir  themselves  to  throw  off  the  curse  of  the 
railroad  cliques,  sought  to  cast  over  them  another 
curse,  were  baffled.    So  was  the  railroad  built,  so  were 


i)4  THE    UKKAT    ISSUES. 

the  railroad  notes  issued,  so  was  life  instilled  into  all 
industry^  ejii])loyjiient  given  to  labor,  and  j^rosperily 
reigned. 

It  was  seen  that  as  the  road  paid  for  itself  out  of 
I)rofils  and  the  notes  issued  to  pay  for  its  construction 
were  canceled,  there  would  come  contraction,  falling 
prices,  industrial  stagnation,  unless  such  contraction 
was  provided  against.  This  was  done  by  providing  for 
the  construction  of  new  puljlic  works  and  the  issue  of 
new  notes  as  the  old  were  canceled,  thus  guarding 
against  contraction  and  providing  for  a  steady  increase 
in  the  volume  of  currency  concurrently  with  the  in- 
crease of  trade  and  expansion  of  industry. 

x\s  the  old  notes  were  paid  off  out  of  profits,  transpor- 
tation charges  were  reduced  to  a  point  so  as  to  yield  a 
revenue  only  equal  to  the  costs  of  transportation.  And 
this  reduction  was  very  material,  for  as  rates  were  re- 
duced tratfic  increased  and  the  costs  of  transportation 
concurrently  decreased,  for  the  larger  the  volume  of 
goods  and  number  of  passengers  transported  the  less 
is  the  cost  ton  for  ton  and  passenger  for  passenger. 
Besides,  the  vast  sums  that  had  been  exacted  from 
shippers  but  that  never  found  their  way  into  the  treas- 
uries of  the  clique-managed  roads,  being  paid  to  the 
cliques  as  rebates  for  favors  granted  at  the  expense 
not  of  those  granting  the  favors,  but  of  the  investors  in 
railroad  property,  were  saved.  So  the  cheapening  of 
transportation  resulting  from  the  construction  and 
operation  of  railroads  by  the  government  was  very 
great,  and  the  interchange  of  commodities,  and  hence 
diversification  of  industries,  leading  in  turn  to  greatly- 
increased  productiveness  of  labor,  was  infinitely  en- 
couraged. 

But  this  was  not  the  only  benefit  by  far  that  accrued 
to  the  people  from  this  new  policy,  for  this  new  policy 
was  the  means  of  establishing  an  honest  monetary  sys- 


AN    ALLEGOEY.  95 

tern.  It  was  noted  that  the  increase  in  the  volume  of 
currency  caused  by  jjaying  out  currency  on  account  of 
railroad  construction  caused  a  greatly-increased  de- 
mand for  all  lines  of  goods  to  spring  up.  It  was  also 
noted  that  any  contraction  in  the  volume  of  currency 
caused  a  shrinkage  in  this  demand,  a  general  fall  in 
prices,  undermining  of  prohts  and  shrinkage  of  Ijusi- 
ness.  And  so  was  it  noted  that  as  the  volume  of 
currency  was  expanded  and  greater  employment  of- 
fered to  labor  wages  rose,  and  that  unless  the  govern- 
ment raised  the  rate  of  wages  offered  as  pay  for  lahor 
employed  on  government  works  any  inflation  of  the 
currency  would  check  itself,  for  men  refusing  to  work 
for  such  pay  the  opportunity  to  put  such  notes  into 
circulation  would  be  closed.  It  was  further  recognized 
that  inflation,  causing  sluii'p  and  speculative  rises  in 
prices,  unsettled  business  even  as  did  contraction, 
causing  sharp  and  great  falls  in  prices;  that  the  money 
calculated  to  promote  industry  was  honest  money  that 
would  neither  rob  the  creditor  on  the  one  hand  or  the 
debtor  on  the  other,  but  that  would  secure  to  men  the 
fruits  of  their  toil,  so  that  the  most  industrious  would 
be  vouchsafed  the  greatest  rewards. 

And  it  was  seen  that  honest  money  was  money  of  in- 
variable purchasing  power,  and  that  the  volume  of 
money  should  be  so  regulated  as  to  insure  such  stabil- 
ity in  values.  With  the  general  progress  of  invention 
and  society  labor  of  course  becomes  more  productive, 
and  if  wages  do  not  rise  proportionately  prices  will 
tend  to  fall.  But  if  prices  do  fall  the  creditor  classes 
will  share  in  the  increased  productiveness  of  labor 
which  they  have  done  nothing  to  bring  about,  which 
is  not  the  fruit  of  their  energy  but  of  the  energy  of 
others,  and  in  such  they  have  no  right  to  share.  The 
only  way  labor  can  fully  profit  from  its  increased  pro- 
ductiveness is  through  risin;?  wages.     Prices  should  be 


96  THE   GREAT  ISSUES. 

kept  stable,  and  as  labor  becomes    more    productive 
wages  should  rise. 

Therefore  it  was  seen  that  the  general  level  of  prices 
f;hould  be  the  measure  of  honest  money,  that  the  vol- 
ume of  money  should  be  so  regulated  as  to  keep  prices 
stable,  that  this  could  be  done  in  connection  with  the 
construction  of  government  railroads  and  public 
works.  By  making  employment  for  all  the  idle  the 
government  provided  for  an  issue  of  money  in  sufficient 
volume  to  enable  the  people  to  make  the  utmost  of 
their  productive  capabilities.  Any  undue  inflation 
and  rise  in  prices  soon  checked  itself  in  two  ways. 
First,  by  the  increased  profits  of  industry  stimulating 
individual  enterprise,  causing  competition  among  em- 
ployers for  the  services  of  wage-earners,  thereby  rais- 
ing wages  and  consequently  diminishing  the  inclina- 
tion of  men  to  accept  government  employment.  Con- 
sequently the  opportunities  for  the  issue  of  currency 
were  curtailed  as  there  was  inflation,  while  the  con- 
stant cancellation  of  notes  out  of  the  profits  of  gov- 
ernment enterprises  not  being  made  good  by  new  is- 
sues contraction  soon  followed  until  the  danger  of 
inflation  was  past.  If  such  contraction  went  so  far 
as  to  threaten  to  destroy  industrial  activity  by  under- 
mining profits,  such  contraction  was  soon  checked;  for, 
the  moment  men  found  themselves  thrown  out  of  em- 
ployment by  curtailment  of  production  caused  by  con- 
traction, falling  prices  and  shrinking  profits,  they 
sought  government  employment,  were  paid  in  govern- 
ment notes,  and  thus  the  currency  expanded  until  the 
fall  in  prices  and  shrinkage  in  profits  was  checked. 

With  the  progress  of  invention  labor  became  more 
productive,  and  if  the  volume  of  money  had  been  regu- 
lated by  the  rate  of  wages  paid  by  the  government,  and 
that  rate  was  arbitrarily  fixed,  prices  would  have  cer- 
tainly fallen  and  injustice  have  been  done.     But  by 


AN   ALLEGORY.  97 

regulating  the  rate  of  wages  by  the  general  level  of 
prices,  raising  such  rate  whenever  the  general  level 
of  prices  was  found  to  have  fallen,  and  in  this  way 
encouraging  an  increase  in  the  volume  of  currency 
sufficient  to  restore  the  general  price  level,  such  price 
level  was  made  to  regulate  the  volume  of  money  and  an 
honest  measure  of  values  secured. 

So  to  all  men  were  secured  the  fruits  of  their  toil, 
each  man's  industry  and  capability  became  the  measure 
of  his  own  success;  thus  were  men  rewarded  according 
to  their  due,  industry  freed  from  all  its  handicaps 
flourished,  there  was  no  longer  heard  the  plaint  of  the 
idle,  no  longer  the  spectacle  of  a  great  people  wasting 
their  productive  force,  but  of  activity,  happiness,  con- 
tentment, of  unrivaled  prosperity. 


For  the  people  of  the  United  States  this  unrivaled 
prosperity  is  not  unattainable.  It  is  ours  if  we  throw 
off  the  curse  of  the  railroad  and  moneyed  cliques  that 
now  blight  our  fair  prospects.  Suppose  we  set  about 
it  and  prove  ourselves  worthy  of  our  heritage. 


THE  ALCHEMIST'S  DREAM. 

[July  iBt,  1899.] 

WEARIED  by  long  standing  over  test  tube  and 
retort,  despondent  with  half  conviction  bred 
in  upon  him  by  oft-recurring  failure  that  he 
was  pursuing  a  deceptive  and  fruitless  trail,  racked  in 
body  and  in  mind,  the  alchemist  sank  into  his  chair, 
fell  into  the  troubled  sleep  that  gives  to  the  mind  no 
rest,  and  dreamed: 


In  the  very  depths  of  despair,  with  his  fondest  ex- 
pectations unrealized  and  almost  ready  to  admit  to 
himself,  as  a  scoffing  world  of  science  had  long 
drummed  in  his  ear,  that  they  were  indeed  unrealiza- 
ble, that  he  had  thrown  away  his  life  in  search  of  the 
undiscoverable,  he  leans  despondently  over  his  blow- 
pipes and  retorts  with  his  heart  filled  with  conflicting 
emotions,  with  despair  getting  the  uppermost  hand  of 
hope,  at  the  point  of  sweeping  his  test  tubes  and  re- 
torts from  olf  his  table  into  one  great  rubbish  heap  as 
so  many  seductive  tempters  that  have  been  the  ruin  of 
his  life.  In  this  despondent  mood,  with  all  the  world 
black  before  him,  with  death  with  all  its  uncertainties 
more  alluring  than  life  with  its  sea  of  shattered  hopes, 
he  mechanically  picks  up  a  vial  of  acid  and  pours  it  over 
one  of  the  baser  metals  heaped  in  hopeless  confusion 
before  him.  And  as  he  vaguely  looks,  with  eyes  rather 
focused  on  a  more  distant  vista,  he  sees  a  change,  a 
decomposition,  going  on  before  his  eyes,  and  lo!  as  he 
looks,  the  sparkle  of  gold,  standing  out  from  the  baser 
metal,  strikes  his  astonished  eye.     Forgetting  the  dis- 


THE  alchemist's  dheam.  99 

iiial  forebodings  of  a  moment  previous,  absorbed  with 
what  he  sees  before  him,  with  reawakened  hope  he  re- 
peats the  experiment,  only  now  so  mechanically  and 
heedlessly  made,  with  all  senses  alert.  And  again  he 
sees  the  same  startling  results,  hope  gives  way  to  con- 
viction, the  philosopher's  secret  is  his,  gold  is  not  a 
primary  element  at  all,  but  a  compound,  one  of  the 
components  of  which  is  in  the  acid,  one  in  the  baser 
metal,  that  by  bringing  the  two  together  gold  can  be 
made.  Periodic  systems  of  the  chemists  may  teach  to 
the  contrary,  prove  that  this  cannot  be,  that  gold  is  a 
primary  element,  that  as  such  it  cannot  be  made  by 
man,  for  there  is  nothing  to  make  it  out  of.  But  here 
is  the  evidence  of  accomplished  fact:  gold  is  a  com- 
pound, can  be  made  and  the  secret  is  his,  the  derided 
alchemist's.  But  now  the  derision  he  can  stand,  visions 
of  wealth  float  before  him,  and,  guarding  well  his 
secret,  he  proceeds  with  feverish  haste  to  make  gold. 
So  laying  in  stores  of  the  baser  metal  and  fortune-giv- 
ing acid  he  secretly  plies  his  trade,  piles  up  gold  upon 
gold,  million  upon  million  that  he  piles  away  in  his 
vaults. 

But  at  last,  worn  out  with  his  labor,  longing  for  rest 
and  a  life  of  ease  in  which  he  may  realize  the  pleasures 
that  his  wealth  can  give,  pleasures  that  are  foreign  to 
him  while  his  gold  lies  piled  up  in  one  great  hoard 
known  only  to  him  and  to  which  he  labors  to  add,  he 
stops  his  toil  and  thinks.  And  then  he  realizes  that 
his  hoarded  gold  which  brings  him  no  return  could  be 
made  to  yield  him  a  princely  income,  an  income  that 
would  assure  him  of  all  the  material  pleasures  that 
mortal  man  can  want,  and  without  impinging  at  all 
upon  the  principal  of  his  wealth,  if  only  he  should  in- 
vest such  gold  in  bonds  and  debts,  loan  it  to  his  fellow- 
men. 

So  he  muses,  muses  that  if  he  is  ever  to  reap  pleasure 


100  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

from  his  wealth  and  enjoy  a  life  of  ease  the  time  is  now, 
and  thus  thinking,  ho  takes  himself  to  his  banker,  ex- 
plains that  he  has  ten  millions  of  gold  which  he  wishes 
to  Invest  in  government  bonds.  But  the  banker,  frugal 
man  with  eye  open  to  the  main  chance  and  with  irons 
of  his  own  in  the  fire  to  roast,  explains  that  gold  so  in- 
vested will  yield  but  3^  per  cent,  a  year,  a  very  meagre 
return,  but  that  he  knows  a  way  in  which  it  can  be  in- 
vested so  as  to  yield  a  good  6  per  cent,  as  interest,  and 
a  profit  through  an  enhancement  of  the  value  of  the 
principal  besides.  And  then  the  banker  explains.  A 
railroad  is  projected  through  a  rich  country,  a  railroad 
that  will  tap  a  country,  here  rich  in  agricultural  pro- 
ducts, here  in  timber,  here  in  minerals  of  coal  and  iron. 
And  to  build  this  railroad  several  hundred  miles  in 
length  it  is  estimated  will  take  ten  millions  of  hard 
cash,  but  that  it  is  proposed  to  capitalize  it  at  much 
more.  Twelve  million  and  a  half  of  bonds  it  is  planned 
to  issue  and  as  much  stock  besides.  "  Now,"  says  the 
banker,  "  these  bonds  which  bear  interest  at  5  per  cent. 
I  will  sell  to  you,  Mr.  Alchemist,  for  80  cents  on  the 
dollar.  Then  you  will  get  $12,500,000  of  bonds  for  $10,- 
000,000  of  gold,  and  this  will  be  enough  money  to  build 
the  road,  which  it  is  estimated  can  readily  earn  enough 
money  to  pay  not  only  interest  on  the  bonds,  but  a 
dividend  on  the  stock  besides.  Getting  twelve  mil- 
lions and  a  half  of  5  per  cent,  bonds  for  ten  million 
dollars,  the  interest  on  your  investment  will  be  really 
6J  per  cent,  a  year,  and  besides  I  am  authorized  to  give 
to  you  a  bonus  of  one-fourth  of  the  capital  stock.  The 
rest  of  the  capital  stock  is  of  course  to  be  distributed 
among  the  promoters  and  those  who  have  advanced  the 
preliminary  sums  for  organization  and  survey  as  recom- 
pense for  their  services." 

Quite    taken   with   this   proposition   the   alchemist 
closes  with  it,  hands  over  his  $10,000,000  of  gold,  gets 


THE   alchemist's    DREAM.  101 

back  $12,500,000  of  bonds,  certificates  for  $3,125,000 
of  full-paid  and  non-assessable  stock,  and  retires  with 
such  to  live  at  ease  upon  the  promised  income.  And 
regularly  thereafter  at  semi-annual  periods  he  clips  the 
coupons  from  his  bonds,  so  collects  the  interest  and 
lives  in  magnificence.  Meanwhile  the  road  is  built, 
the  country  through  which  it  runs  develops,  iron  foun- 
dries and  steel  mills  are  built,  lumbering  enterprises 
multiply,  traffic  increases,  the  earnings  of  the  road  in- 
crease, interest  on  the  bonded  debt  is  more  than 
earned,  a  surplus  accumulates  and  at  last  a  dividend  is 
paid  upon  the  common  stock.  With  all  this  apparent 
prosperity  the  bonds  of  the  road  rise  until  far  more 
than  par  is  ofl'ered  for  them,  while  the  stock  of  the  road 
also  advances. 

Then  Mr.  Alchemist,  who  bought  these  bonds  at 
eighty,  and  thinking  of  the  profit  he  might  realize  by 
selling  such,  goes  and  sees  his  banker.  "■  The  bonds," 
says  the  banker,  "  I  can  sell  for  you  for  more  than  par, 
sell  the  twelve  million  and  a  half  of  bonds  so  as  to 
realize  you  fifteen  millions  of  dollars  and  invest  the 
proceeds  so  as  to  yield  you  six  per  cent.  Thus  where 
you  now  get  $625,000  as  interest  on  the  bonds  you  can 
draw  an  income  of  $900,000,  increasing  your  income 
$275,000  by  a  simple  change  of  investment.  The  stock 
of  the  railroad,  one-fourth  of  which  you  hold,  is  now 
paying  a  dividend  of  5  per  cent.,  promises  to  continue 
paying  such  or  a  higher  dividend,  and  is  selling  for  80 
per  cent,  of  par.  The  balance  of  the  stock,  $9,375,000, 
1  think  I  can  get  for  you  at  80  or  for  $7,500,000,  and 
the  stock  at  such  price  will  yield  you  6^  per  cent.  So 
for  one-half  of  the  sum  you  may  realize  from  the  sale 
of  your  bonds  I  can  get  you  such  stock  and  for  the 
other  half  an  equal  amount  of  equally  good  stock  of 
an  allied  road." 

So  Mr.  Alchemist  figures  that  for  his  $12,500,000  of 


102  TIIK    GREAT    ISSUES. 

bonds  paying  5  per  cent,  he  can  get  $18,750,000  of 
stock  paying  5  per  cent.,  and  this  striking  him  as  a  very 
favorable  proposition,  be  closes  it.  Adding  this  to  the 
stock  already  held  be  finds  himself  the  possessor  of  a 
fortune,  as  represented  by  railroad  stocks,  of  $21,875,- 
000.  And  then  he  returns  home  to  take  up  the  even 
tenor  of  his  ways,  live  his  life  of  ease. 

Several  years  pass  without  a  cloud  or  speck  on  his 
financial  horizon  to  trouble  him.  A  decade  has  gone 
since  he  first  invested  in  this  road,  put  aside  his  retorts 
and  crucibles,  began  to  live  a  life  of  ease,  gather  the 
fruits  of  his  wealth.  He  awakens  one  morning  to  find 
to  his  surprise  that  the  roads  whose  stocks  he  holds 
have  passed  their  dividends,  he  begins  to  realize  that 
the  income  he  had  looked  on  as  assured  is  no  more. 
Much  troubled  he  seeks  his  banker.  From  him  he 
learns  that  freights  have  been  forced  very  low  by  the 
pressure  of  competition,  that  the  earnings  of  the  roads 
have  been  much  cut  into  though  the  traffic  has  been 
well  sustained,  that  the  outlook  is  gloomy,  that  indeed 
default  of  interest  on  the  bonds  and  receivership  for 
the  roads  is  not  impossible.  Thus  more  than  ever 
alarmed  he  turns  to  the  banker,  which  gentleman 
points  to  the  prosperity  of  certain  industrial  estab- 
lishments, certain  iron  furnaces  and  steel  mills,  the  se- 
curities of  which  can  be  bought  at  a  price  promising 
fair  returns,  and  advises  poor,  disturbed  Mr.  Alchemist 
to  sell  his  railroad  stocks,  which  still  can  be  sold, 
though  the  sacrifice  must  be  great,  and  invest  the  pro- 
ceeds in  the  dividend-paying  stocks  of  the  aforesaid 
industrial  establishments.  This  ad\dce  Mr.  Alchemist 
decides  to  act  upon,  and  directs  the  banker  to  sell  his 
railroad  stocks  and  buy  the  stocks  of  said  iron  furnaces 
and  steel  mills.  When  the  transaction  is  completed 
he  finds  his  fortune  of  twenty  odd  million  of  dollars  in- 


THE    alchemist's    DREAM.  103 

vested  in  railroad  stocks  shrunk  to  ten  millions  in- 
vested in  industrial  stocks. 

Yet  he  has  still  a  fortune  as  large  as  he  made  in 
making  gold  and  soon  he  finds  cause  to  congratulate 
himself,  the  railroads  in  which  he  had  investments  go- 
ing into  receivers'  hands,  the  stockholders  being 
threatened  with  the  prospect  of  an  assessment,  and  at 
the  same  time  an  issue  of  second  mortgage  or  junior 
bonds  to  come  in  between  the  first  mortgage  bonds  and 
the  stock,  and  on  which,  of  course,  interest  would  have 
to  be  earned  and  paid  before  anything  could  be  divided 
among  the  stockholders.  Later  he  sees  all  these  pros- 
pects realized,  he  rather  felicitates  himself  on  his  good 
luck  than  broods  over  his  loss,  and  for  a  year  or  two 
he  is  little  concerned. 

But  then  one  of  the  industrial  corporations  in  which 
he  has  invested  reduces  its  dividends,  to  be  followed  by 
another  and  another.  Looking  over  the  reports  he  dis- 
covers that  their  profits  show  a  diminution  as  compared 
to  other  years.  He  inquires  as  to  the  cause,  and  is 
told  that  competition  with  other  establishments  situ- 
ated along  other  roads  has  grown  more  severe,  that 
they  have  found  it  hard,  indeed  impossible,  to  hold 
their  own  with  such  establishments,  which  seem  to  Tae 
outstripping  them.  Thus  it  seems  to  him  that  the 
paths  of  the  industrial  plants  in  which  he  has  invested 
are  strewn  with  thorns.  He  asks  why  it  is  that  rivals 
are  outstripping  them,  and  the  managers  cannot  ex- 
plain. Is  it  that  such  rivals  are  so  situated  as  to  pro- 
duce more  economically  and  so  sell  cheaper?  His  man- 
agers deny  it.  Is  it  that  they  are  better  managed, 
more  up-to-date,  more  alive  to  the  progress  of  science 
and  the  needs  of  the  trade?  His  managers  are  loath 
to  admit  it.  But  what  then?  They  are  at  sea,  cannot 
explain,  and  yet  as  month  follows  month  it  becomes 
more  and  more  evident  that  they    are    being    outdis- 


104  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

tanced,  hopelessly  outdistanced.  They  struggle  hard 
to  hold  their  own,  cut  prices  to  hold  trade  until  there 
is  not  a  sufficient  margin  of  profit  in  production  to 
earn  dividends  and  dividends  are  passed,  until  there 
is  not  enough  margin  to  earn  fixed  charges,  and  they 
are  driven  into  bankruptcy.  Thus  with  ever-increasing 
uneasiness  and  feeling  of  utter  helplessness  Mr.  Al- 
chemist witnesses  one  industrial  plant  after  another  in 
which  he  has  invested  pass  its  dividends  and  drift  into 
bankruptcy,  to  be  followed  by  foreclosure  sales  and  the 
wiping  out  of  his  holdings  until  at  last  he  is  left  penni- 
less, stripped  of  his  great  fortune. 

And  then  he  muses  on  this  great  change  in  fortune, 
runs  his  memory  back  over  the  years,  investigates  and 
he  sees  things  that  he  did  not  see  before,  things  of 
which  he  had  not  dreamed.  He  sees  that  he  made  ten 
millions  of  gold  with  very  little  actual  labor;  he  sees 
that  this  gold  built  a  railroad,  developed  a  fair  coun- 
try, put  life  into  trade  and  industry,  gave  employment 
to  men.  He  sees  it  paid  the  men  who  graded  the  road- 
bed and  laid  the  track,  he  sees  that  it  paid  for  the  ties 
and  rails  and  bridges.  He  recalls  that  for  this  gold  he 
got  twelve  and  a  half  millions  of  bonds  and  one-fourth 
as  much  stock  while  three-fourths  as  much  went  to  the 
prime  promoters  of  the  road.  He  sees  indeed  that  the 
road  was  capitalized  for  $25,000,000,  or  two  and  one- 
half  times  what  it  really  cost,  and  realizes  that  when  it 
was  paying  5  per  cent,  on  bonds  and  stock  it  was  really 
paying  12|  per  cent,  on  cost,  that  as  it  paid  interest  on 
the  bonds  from  the  very  beginning  and  began  paying 
dividends  on  the  third  or  fourth  year  it  really  paid  for 
itself  inside  of  a  decade.  And  he  sees  that  the  peo- 
ple who  paid  the  freights  thus  paid  for  the  road,  but 
that  under  this  system  they  would  never  own  it,  never 
mind  how  many  times  over  they  might  pay  for  it.  He 
is  startled  at  this  thought  and  questions:  Is  this  right? 


THE    alchemist's    DREAM.  105 

The  world  answers  yes,  those  who  build  the  road  should 
have  interest  on  their  investment,  otherwise  they 
would  not  build. 

But  who  built  the  road?  Did  he  with  his  ten  mil- 
lions of  gold  or  was  it  they  Avho  graded  the  roadbed, 
laid  the  track,  cut  the  ties,  rolled  the  rails,  built  the 
bridges?  His  ten  millions  he  sees  was  but  the  grease 
that  set  the  wheels  revolving,  put  labor  to  work.  But 
should  he  not  receive  a  good  interest  lor  the  use  of 
grease  so  valuable?  The  world  answers  yes.  But  af- 
ter all,  what  did  this  grease,  what  did  this  ten  millions 
cost  him?  Did  it  cost  him  enough  to  entitle  him  to  the 
fruits  of  the  toil  of  all  those  engaged  in  the  building 
of  the  road,  to  the  actual  ownership  of  that  road?  Was 
his  labor  in  making  this  ten  millions  of  gold  as  valua- 
ble indeed  as  the  joint  labor  of  all  those  who  built  the 
road,  so  valuable  indeed  that  the  ownership  of  the  road 
itself  and  interest  thereon  forever,  interest  at  12^  per 
cent,  per  annum,  was  only  a  fair  recompense  for  its 
use?  True,  he  did  not  get  this  exclusive  ownership; 
finally  he  lost  even  part  ownership,  for  the  bankers  had 
wheedled  him  out  of  it.  But  this  did  not  change  the 
primary  fact,  and  he  marvels  that  such  a  thing  could 
be  so. 

But  he  investigates  a  little  more,  looks  a  little 
further  behind  the  curtain.  He  sees  that  when  the 
banker  induced  him  to  put  his  gold  into  the  bonds  of 
a  prospective  railroad  that  such  banker  and  associates 
went  off  and  invested  in  undeveloped  coal  and  iron  and 
timber  lands,  and  also  town  sites  along  the  line  of  such 
road.  And  when  such  road  was  built  they  were  thus 
in  position  to  reap  first  profit  from  the  development  of 
such  lands.  In  all  the  great  enterprises,  in  considera- 
tion of  their  ownership  of  these  lands  they  were  given 
a  share,  and  so  in  the  mines  and  in  the  industrial  es- 
tablishments, the  iron  furnaces  and  steel  mills,  they 


106  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

became  part  owners.  And  as  these  mills  prospered 
they  prospered.  Finally,  after  Mr.  Alchemist  was  in- 
duced to  sell  his  railroad  bonds  and  invest  in  railroad 
stocks,  these  speculative  bankers  with  these  industrial 
interests  began  to  bleed  the  railroad  for  the  advantage 
of  such  industries,  with  the  final  result  that  the  railroad 
dividends  were  passed  that  the  dividends  of  the  indus- 
trial plants  might  l)e  increased,  all  of  which  was  used 
to  induce  Mr.  Alchemist  to  sell  out  his  railroad  stocks, 
thus  systematically  depreciated,  and  invest  in  indus- 
trial stocks  thus  systematically  appreciated,  incidental- 
ly parting  with  half  his  fortune  in  the  operation.  To 
all  this  Mr.  Alchemist  awakens,  and  he  further  sees 
that  this  change  made,  the  bankers  having  also  changed 
their  investments,  buying  what  he  sold  and  selling 
what  he  bought,  also  changed  their  tactics.  They  be- 
gan to  bleed  the  industrial  establishments  that  the 
profits  of  the  road  might  be  built  up,  interest  paid  on 
watered  capital,  dividends  declared,  and  above  all  that 
industrial  plants  in  which  they  were  interested  and 
situated  on  other  roads  might  prosper.  So  discrimina- 
tion in  freight  rates  such  as  to  make  it  impossible  for 
the  establishments  in  which  Mr.  Alchemist  had  in- 
vested to  assemble  the  raw  products  of  manufacture 
and  market  the  products  as  cheaply  as  their  rivals. 
And  so  in  the  race  they  were  outdistanced,  so  bank- 
rupted. This  Mr.  Alchemist  sees;  the  answer  to  the 
unexplainable  he  has.  He  sees  that  some  one  other 
than  himself  has  discovered  a  philosopher's  stone,  and 
a  stone,  though  different,  withal  so  effective  as  to  have 
been  the  means  of  stripping  him,  him  of  the  philoso- 
pher's stone,  of  all  his  gold. 

And  now  a  poorer  but  a  wiser  man,  he  soliloquizes. 
If  I  made  the  money  that  paid  for  several  hundred 
miles  of  railroad,  developed  a  section  of  the  country, 
set  labor  to  work,  why  could  not  the  government  make 


THE   ALCHK.MlSi's    Din: AM.  107 

money  to  do  the  same  work?  Aud  if  it  could,  which  it 
obviously  could,  why  should  it  not  and  thus  secure  the 
ownership  of  such  road  to  the  whole  people  instead  of 
some  few,  secure  the  profits  of  such  road  for  the  whole 
people  instead  of  making  it  a  charge  upon  the  whole 
people  for  the  enrichment  of  the  speculative  cliques)? 
Is  it  that  if  the  government  should  so  issue  money  so 
much  would  soon  be  issued  as  to  so  inflate  the  currency 
as  to  destroy  confidence,  with  the  final  result  that 
such  currency  would  cease  to  pass  current  and  men  re- 
sort to  barter  in  the  exchange  of  goods,  fearing  to  take 
that  which  was  steadily  depreciating?  But,  no,  it  can- 
not be  this,  for,  drawing  a  lesson  from  his  experience, 
he  sees  that  out  of  profits  the  road  he  built  might  have 
retired  all  the  money  issued  to  pay  for  it  in  the  course 
of  eight  years.  Thus  the  roads  themselves  would  retire 
the  money  issued  to  build  them,  thus  leaving  room  for 
the  issue  of  more  money  to  build  more  roads  as  needed, 
and  thus  would  the  people  come  to  own  their  own  rail- 
roads, thus  would  over-charges  and  the  evils  of  freight 
discrimination,  so  destructive  of  honest  industrj^  so  in- 
ducive  to  fraud  and  dishonesty,  bribery  and  corruption, 
cease. 


And  then  our  alchemist  awakens  from  his  dream  to 
the  fact  that  the  philosopher's  secret  is  not  his,  that  he 
has  neither  made  nor  lost  a  fortune,  but  with  the  truth 
borne  in  upon  him  that  there  is  a  philosopher's  secret 
known  to  many,  used  by  many,  but  far  different  from 
that  he  sought  and  that  there  is  a  philosopher's  stone 
that  the  government  can  make,  a  stone  by  which  idle 
labor  can  be  turned  into  productive,  wasted  labor  into 
wealth,  life  breathed  into  industry,  hard  times,  idle- 
ness, and  want  bred  of  idleness  banished  from  the  land. 


OUE  DAY  OF  SORROW. 

[February  11th,  1899  — one  week  after  the  outbreak  of  the  Filipino  War.] 

ON  a  Sunday  morning  nine  months  ago  events 
transpired  in  Manila  Bay  that  thrilled  the 
American  people  with  boundless  rejoicing.  On 
that  day  American  sailors  freely  offered  their  lives 
as  a  sacrifice  in  the  cause  of  liberty,  for  the  upliftment 
of  downtrodden  humanity,  for  the  emancipation  of  a 
people  from  foreign  oppression.  They  offered  their 
lives  for  the  promotion  of  a  righteous  cause;  the  God 
of  hosts  looked  down  upon  them  with  His  infinite  sym- 
pathy and  pity  for  noble  men  offering  their  lives  in  a 
noble  cause,  the  sacrifice  they  offered  was  not  de- 
manded, they  won  an  immortal  victory.  So  no  tears 
for  an  American  hero,  humble  or  exalted,  sacrificed  in 
the  cause  of  liberty,  detracted  from  the  joy  of  the 
American  people  over  this  that  men  believed  to  be  a 
liberty-giving  victory. 

And  now  again  on  a  Sunday  morning  is  there  fought 
out  at  Manila  a  battle  that  fills  the  American  people 
with  emotion.  But  it  is  a  thrill,  if  not  of  sadness,  cer- 
tainly not  of  unalloyed  joy.  For  on  that  far-off  battle- 
field lie  stretched  in  death  American  soldiers  who  re- 
sponded to  the  call  of  duty.  And  worse,  have  they 
fallen  not  fighting  in  the  cause  of  liberty,  but  for  the 
subjugation  of  their  fellow-men  consecrating  their 
lives  in  that  hallowed  cause;  they  liave  been  called 
upon  to  dedicate  their  lives  not  to  the  goddess  of  lib- 
erty, but  the  moloch  of  greed.  To  that  call  they  re- 
sponded as  is  a  soldier's  duty,  in  responding  to  that 
call  many  Americans  laid  down  their  lives.     Rather 


OUR   DAY    OF    SORROW.  109 

1 1  Kill  this  sacrifice  at  tlie  throne  of  greed,  would  we  see 
ten  times  the  number  of  Americans  sacrificed  to  the 
cause  of  liberty,  to  the  cause  which  our  forefathers 
cherished  and  fought  for,  for  the  conservation  of  which 
they  dedicated  the  American  Kepublic.  With  infin- 
itely less  emotion,  with  infinitely  more  composure, 
with  infinitely  fewer  tears  could  we  bear  the  greater 
sacrifice  if  made  in  a  righteous  cause,  for  we  would 
feel  the  sacrifice  had  not  been  made  in  vain.  As  it  is 
we  feel  the  sacrifice  of  American  manhood  has  been 
worse  than  vain,  that  by  that  sacrifice  the  cause  of  hu- 
manity will  profit  nothing,  lose  much. 

In  the  name  of  trade  expansion,  in  the  greed  for  un- 
earned gain  have  we  listened  to  the  tempter,  taken  up 
a  position  in  the  Philippines  with  every  appearance  of 
permanence,  caused  the  Filipinos  to  believe  that  we 
ar(3  there  not  to  give  them  liberty,  but  to  exploit,  des- 
poil them  as  a  servile  race  as  Spanish  have  despoiled 
them  unmercifully  in  the  past,  and  we  have  goaded 
then  into  resistance,  into  an  efl^ort  to  oust  us  whom  to 
them  and  by  our  own  acts  have  ceased  to  appear  as 
welcome  liljorators  and  have  become  hateful  invaders. 
The  moloch  of  greed  has  called  for  a  sacrifice  of  Ameri- 
can manhood,  the  sacrifice  has  been  taken  and  the  wor- 
shipers at  her  shrine  in  America  go  on  their  way  re- 
joicing. That  the  Filipinos  have  been  goaded  into  re- 
sistance they  rejoice,  for  it  has  offered  the  Americans 
the  opportunity  to  teach  that  people  cut  out  as  a  ser- 
vile race  a  needed  lesson,  the  lesson  that  they  are  no 
match  for  Americans,  that  they  are  an  inferior  race  fit 
only  to  toil  at  the  direction  and  for  the  profit  of  oth- 
ers, that  as  a  servile  race  we  intend  to  keep  and  treat 
them.  So  these  worshipers  at  the  shrine  of  greed  re- 
joice, for  so  they  look  upon  the  Filipinos,  aye,  and 
upon  our  own  laboring  pojjulation,  too;  so  they  propose 
to  treat  them;  for  this  end  they  want  the  Philippines, 


110  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

and  as  it  appears  to  them  the  sooner  the  Filipinos  be 
beaten  into  abject  submission  and  servility  the  better. 

And  this  treatment  of  the  Filipinos  they  call  in  their 
own  hypocritical  cant  a  duty — thus  do  they  pander  to 
an  uneasy  conscience.  It  is  a  duty  to  be  master  to  the 
Filipinos  because  they  are  an  inferior  people,  it  is  a 
duty  to  be  master  to  them  so  that  they  may  be  shown 
how  to  direct  their  labor  so  as  to  secure  greatest  re- 
sults, so  that  they  may  be  uplifted  in  material  and 
spiritual  ways,  for  be  it  remarked  that  these  worship- 
ers at  the  shrine  of  Mammon  lay  much  stress  on  the 
sword  as  a  means  to  open  the  way  to  the  teachings  of 
Christianity,  and  yet  call  themselves  disciples  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace.  So  to  take  up  and  assume  this  mas- 
tership over  Filipinos,  to  shape  their  future,  to  keep 
them  in  subjection,  to  deny  them  independence,  to 
keep  them  from  rising  as  an  independent  people,  of 
course  all  for  their  own  good,  is  put  forth  as  our  duty. 

It  is  this  that  a  British  poet,  in  tempting  us  on,  calls 
the  "  white  man's  burden  " — as  if  it  was  a  burden  to 
the  white  man  to  ride  to  riches  upon  the  labor  of  the 
yellow  races.  It  is  greed,  the  greed  of  grasping  the 
fruits  of  the  toil  of  a  people  over  whom  we  may  rule, 
not  duty  that  calls  us  to  take  up  this  burden!  It  is 
only  by  gradual  stages  of  evolution  that  a  people  can 
rise  to  a  higher  estate.  If  then  a  stronger  nation  as- 
sume the  mastership  of  their  fortunes,  persist  in  treat- 
ing them  as  a  servile  and  inferior  people  incapable  of 
advancement  upon  their  own  initiative  and  so  supply 
the  initiative  that  they  are  denied  the  opportunity  to 
supply  themselves,  how  can  such  people  rise?  They 
cannot  rise.  They  must  remain  servile.  Their 
ability  to  create  wealth  may  be  vastly  increased, 
but  the  increased  w^ealth  that  is  produced  will 
be  carried  off  by  those  who  supply  the  initiative,  w^ho 
direct  labor  to  make  it  thus  increasingly  productive — 


OUR   DAT   OF   SORROW.  Ill 

namely,  the  foreign  task  masters.  And  if  the  wealth 
is  thus  gathered  in  alien  hands,  if  all  the  advances 
made  under  foreign  initiative  accrue  to  the  advantage 
of  the  foreign  initiators,  how  can  the  people  rise?  It 
is  obviously  impossible.  They  cannot  rise  if  denied 
the  opportunity  to  rise;  they  cannot  make  progress  as 
a  free  people  if  kept  in  subjugation  as  a  servile  race. 

And  meanwhile  what  will  come  of  their  masters  who 
drive  them  so  as  to  make  their  labor  more  productive, 
but  take  to  themselves  the  fruits  of  that  increased  pro- 
ductiveness? Gaining  wealth  by  easy  channels  they 
will  not  feel  that  stimulus  that  leads  men  to  use  their 
own  energies  to  the  best  advantage.  As  a  result  a  tur- 
pitude, moral  and  physical,  will  overcome  them;  they 
will  be  disposed  to  exalt  money  more  and  more  above 
man;  to  gain  their  ends  by  corruption  rather  than  by 
honest  exertion.  And  this  is  the  class  of  men  that  we 
will  be  prone  to  raise  up  by  our  Philippine  policy;  this 
is  the  class  of  men  that  we  will  strengthen  in  our  body 
politic.  And  surely  our  body  politic  will  not  be 
strengthened  thereby.  In  denying  Filipinos  the  right 
to  form  a  democratic  government  we  will  sow  seeds  of 
dissolution  in  our  own. 

So  as  we  have  looked  upon  the  culmination  of  events 
in  the  Philippines  we  have  been  filled  with  dire  fore- 
bodings. It  is  not  alone  that  our  soldiers  should  be 
sacrificed  in  the  Philippines  at  the  command  of  the 
moloch  of  greed  that  causes  us  to  weep  bitter  tears, 
tears  of  sorrow  and  wrath;  it  is  not  alone  that  worship- 
ers at  the  shrine  of  greed  in  America  and  who  have 
forced  this  sacrifice  should  go  on  their  Avay  rejoicing; 
it  is  that  they  should  be  just  as  ready  to  sacrifice  our 
own  people  to  their  greed  as  those  whom  an  honored 
statesman  disrespectfully  refers  to  as  "  yellow  bellies  "; 
that  they  are  quite  as  ready  to  reduce  our  own  laboring 
population  to  humility  and  servility  as  they  are  the 


112  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

Filipinos,  that  they  would  do  so  if  they  had  the  power, 
that  they  seek  this  power  in  an  increased  standing 
army,  that  they  purpose  to  use  it  when  they  get  it,  not 
for  the  protection  of  a  free  people  from  foreign  ag- 
gression, but  to  deprive  that  people  of  their  rights, 
crush  their  protests,  chastise  them  if  they  resist  the 
effort  to  reduce  them  to  abject  servility. 

We  bear  in  mind  that  supporters  of  the  President 
warmly  deny  that  they  contemplated  the  laying  of  the 
foundations  of  a  colonial  system,  deny  that  they  are 
prompted  in  their  policy  of  expansion  by  those  pos- 
sessed with  a  lust  for  gain  at  the  expense  of  their  fel- 
low-men, deny  that  they  have  goaded  Filipinos  into  re- 
sistance. But  when  we  see  the  statistical  bureaus  of 
the  government  busily  engaged  in  showing  how  the 
colonial  system  of  Great  Britain  has  benefited  British 
trade,  made  markets  for  British  goods,  what  deduc- 
tions are  we  to  draw?  That  the  Administration  is 
bending  its  energies  to  educate  our  people  to  the  ad- 
vantages of  the  colonial  system  and  so  cause  public 
opinion  to  exert  itself  in  demanding  an  extension  of 
such  a  system  by  America.  Trade,  foreign  trade,  we 
are  after;  it  is  the  ignis  fatuus  of  the  day,  and  the 
way  to  extend  such  trade  is  to  build  a  colonial  system. 
So  the  Administration  bends  it  energies  to  teach.  We 
would  suggest  that  the  way  is  the  building  of  an  Amer- 
ican customs  union,  not  of  a  colonial  system  reaching 
out  in  Asia,  for  the  natural  markets  for  our  surplus 
products  are  in  the  countries  of  America  just  as  we 
offer  the  natural  market  for  the  surplus  tropical  pro- 
ducts of  those  countries,  and  which  we  cannot  produce 
for  ourselves  to  any  advantage.  Furthermore,  these 
American  markets  are  broader  than  the  markets  of  the 
Orient,  and  vastly  more  capable  of  expansion,  not  in- 
deed that  the  countries  of  the  East  are  less  rich  in  nat- 
ural resources,  but  for  the  reason  that  those  countries. 


OUK   DAY    OF    SORROW.  113 

including  within  themselves  every  clime,  and  even  as 
the  Americas,  have  the  capability  of  supplying  them- 
selves with  their  own  wants,  and  because  of  their  teem- 
ing population  and  proximity  the  one  to  the  other, 
which  must  give  them  a  natural  advantage  over  us  in 
their  own  sphere,  at  lower  cost  than  we  can  hope  to 
supply  them.  Therefore,  we  may  be  assured  that  they 
will  keep  their  markets  to  themselves  and,  with  their 
adoption  of  modern  methods  of  production  that  is 
surely  coming  and  close  at  hand,  to  an  even  larger  ex- 
tent than  they  have  in  the  past.  And  in  the  past  the 
total  import  trade  of  China  has  been  equal  to  just 
about  1^  per  cent,  of  our  own  domestic  trade,  the 
whole  import  trade  of  the  Orient  and  Australasia  only 
about  one-tenth  of  the  extent  of  our  home  trade. 

But  the  annexation  of  the  Philippines  is  urged  on 
the  ground  that  it  would  give  us  a  point  of  vantage 
from  which  to  grasp  a  greater  share  of  this  trade.  And 
be  it  borne  in  mind  that  grasp  is  the  very  idea  that  the 
worshipers  at  the  shrine  of  greed  have  in  mind,  for 
they  would  extend  our  trade  at  the  cannon's  mouth 
Just  as  they  would  the  Christian  religion.  We  deny 
that  either  can  be  so  extended  with  any  profit.  Trade 
to  be  lasting  must  be  mutually  advantageous;  it  must 
not  sap  the  resources,  the  vitality  of  one  of  the  parties 
to  the  trade.  If  it  does,  such  trade  must,  in  the  end, 
dry  up  for  want  of  very  sustenance.  And  trade  that 
is  mutually  advantageous  needs  no  shotted  guns  to 
extend.  The  only  trade  that  needs  the  support  of  can- 
nons is  the  trade  that  amounts  to  robbery,  that  is  felt 
to  be  such,  resisted  as  such  and  that  cannot  last.  Mu- 
tually profitable  and  hence  lasting  trade  grows  in  peace 
— even  as  the  Christian  religion. 

Still  to  get  rich  by  robbing  one's  fellows  is  very 
tempting  if  one  can  arrange  things  so  as  not  to  get 
caught  at  it.     And  if  the  individual  can  so  get  rich  he 


114  THE   GREAT   ISSUES, 

will  not  be  deterred  because  by  so  doing  he  may  ruin 
trade  for  those  who  may  come  after,  undermine  the 
welfare  of  his  country.  And  if  his  country  can  be 
prevailed  on  to  protect  him  while  so  undermining  the 
general  welfare,  so  much  the  better.  It  is  only  a  case 
of  government  being  conducted  for  the  enrichment  of 
the  favored  few,  not  the  welfare  of  the  many,  and  this 
is  the  perfection,  the  acme  of  good  government  accord- 
ing to  the  favored.  Thus  did  Britain  make  war  on 
China  to  open  a  way  for  British  merchants  to  sell 
opium,  a  poison  the  importation  of  which  was  forbid- 
den by  the  Imperial  Chinese  Government;  thus  did 
Britain  sacrifice  the  industries  of  India  for  the  benefit 
of  the  cotton  lords  of  Lancashire,  only  again  to  sacri- 
fice those  manufacturing  lords  and  build  up  rivals  in 
India  by  pushing  a  dishonest  monetary  system  on  the 
world  in  the  interests  of  the  more  powerful  money 
lords  of  London. 

But,  as  we  have  said,  statistical  bureaus  of  our  gov- 
ernment are  striving  to  show  that  the  colonial  sys- 
tem is  a  great  thing  for  trade.  Hence  we  must  build  a 
colonial  system.  If  a  few  thousand  of  Filipinos  must 
be  shot  down  in  the  process  it  makes  no  difference,  we 
must  not  halt,  it  is  manifest  destiny.  It  is  shown  that 
Great  Britain  supplies  only  15  per  cent,  of  the  foreign 
merchandise  that  the  non-British  world  buys  but  that 
of  the  wants  of  her  colonies  and  dependencies  she  sup- 
plies 43  per  cent.  Hence  it  is  proven  that  colonies 
are  a  great  thing  for  trade,  and  in  the  name  of  trade 
we  must  gather  in  dependencies  where  we  get  the 
chance.  So  we  must  begin  by  taking  the  Philippines. 
The  interests  of  the  people  thereof  are  not  considered, 
it  is  in  the  interest  of  our  trade — trade  expansion  in 
those  islands  and  the  Orient  generally — that  we  must 
take  possession. 

The  reports  that  the  President,  great  anti-colonialist 


OUR    DAY    OF    SORROW.  115 

according  to  some,  is  causing  to  be  published  with  the 
money  of  the  United  States  and  for  the  edification  of 
the  American  people  and  their  conversion  to  the  sup- 
port of  a  colonial  system,  go  on  to  say  that  in  the  Brit- 
ish dependencies  "  there  has  evidently  been,  through 
the  material  development  which  has  followed  this  re- 
lationship, a  great  increase  in  purchasing  power."  So 
the  conclusion  that  if  we  annex  the  Philippines  not 
only  will  we  gain  a  large  part  of  the  business  of  supply- 
ing the  markets  of  those  islands,  but  that  those  mar- 
kets will  greatly  broaden.  But  here  we  would  remark 
that  the  purchasing  power  of  the  people  of  British  In- 
dia as  exerted  in  foreign  markets,  and  increased  as  it 
may  have  been  by  British  development,  is  less  than  one 
dollar  a  head  a  year.  That  is,  the  British  Indians  do 
not  purchase  one  dollar's  worth  of  foreign  merchandise 
apiece  in  the  course  of  a  year.  The  Filipinos  under 
Spanish  development  made  a  purchasing  power  of  for- 
eign merchandise  of  a  little  more  than  a  dollar  a  year. 

So,  unless  we  do  better  with  the  Filipinos  than  the 
British  have  done  with  Indians,  we  cannot  expect  to 
much  increase  the  market  for  foreign  goods  by  taking 
those  islands.  The  truth  is  that  the  Filipinos,  like  the 
British  Indians,  can  make  for  themselves  such  cloth- 
ing as  they  need  much  cheaper  than  we  or  Europeans 
can  make  and  send  it  to  them.  With  their  cheap  labor 
and  dexterity  they  can  better  and  more  cheaply  supply 
themselves  with  their  wants  than  we  can  supply  them. 
And  if  we  introduce  modern  machinery  and  direct 
tliem  in  its  operation  the  inevitable  result  mi;st  be  that 
tliey  will  be  able  to  produce  cheaper  than  ever.  Their 
labor  will  indeed  become  more  productive,  but  instead  ' 
of  making  a  market  for  our  surplus  goods  they  will  be 
seeking  a  market  for  their  surplus  goods  and  in  com- 
petition with  the  products  of  American  labor  in  our 
markets.     In  short,  Americans  in  the  Philippines  and 


116  THE   GREAT  ISSUES. 

hiring  Filipino  lal)or  will  be  making  goods  for  sale  in 
American  markets  in  competition  with  American 
labor.  This  is  the  more  likely  outcome  of  our  effort  to 
spread  the  outlet  for  our  goods  by  conquest.  England 
has  already  seen  Indian  manufactured  goods  displace 
Lancashire  in  the  Chinese  markets;  it  may  be  our  fate 
to  see  the  same  with  Filipinos,  our  necessity  to  protect 
ourselves  from  such  competition  in  our  own  markets 
by  raising  protective  tariff  duties  against  imports  from 
the  Philippines.  And  then  suppose  our  Supreme 
Court,  declaring  the  Philippines  a  part  of  the  United 
States,  says  we  can't?  True,  the  Supreme  Court 
would  have  to  reverse  precedents  to  so  do,  but  the 
court  has  done  stranger  things.  Being  composed  of 
mortal  men  and  influenced  by  environment  it  ever  has 
and  ever  will  be  prone  to  judge  much  as  the  controlling 
spirits  of  the  atmosphere  in  which  it  moves  would  have 
it  judge.  If  those  spirits  desired  to  use  Filipino  labor 
to  grind  down  American  the  court  would  be  prone  to 
so  judge  as  to  further  such  use,  as  to  overthrow  any 
tariff  barrier  that  Congress  might  raise  for  the  protec- 
tion of  American  labor;  if  they  desired  to  keep  out 
Filipino  goods  the  environment  of  the  court  would  dis- 
pose it  to  judge  otherwise. 

It  is  in  this  way,  not  through  migration  of  Filipinos 
to  America,  that  the  American  workman  will  be 
thrown  into  competition  with  them.  The  same  is  also 
largely  true  of  the  Chinese.  We  will,  we  fancy,  have 
cause  to  take  this  to  heart  ere  many  years  have  passed. 

Yet  to  extend  our  export  trade  to  China  and  the 
Orient  generally,  we  are  pressed  to  make  the  Philip- 
pines a  dependency  of  the  United  States.  It  is  not  a 
fertile  ground.  The  whole  foreign  import  trade  of  the 
Orient  and  Australasia  is  now  about  one  billion  of  dol- 
lars, and  of  this  one-fourth  is  Australasian.  In  short, 
less  than  one  per  cent,  of  the  people  of  that  part  of  the 


OUE   DAY    OF   SORROW.  117 

world  make  a  market  for  25  per  cent,  of  the  goods  sold 
in  the  East  by  Europe  and  America.  By  this  we  may 
judge  of  the  comparative  demand  made  by  white  man 
for  white  man's  goods  and  yellow  man  for  white  man's 
goods.  The  yellow  man  makes  no  demand  compara- 
tively, and  the  making  of  a  demand  is  not  in  him,  for 
he  can  make  his  own  goods  cheaper  than  the  white 
man,  removed  by  thousands  of  leagues  from  his  mar- 
kets and  handicapped  by  costs  of  transportation,  can 
make  them  for  him. 

But,  ignoring  all,  we  plunge  forward  on  our  career 
of  folly.  We  occupy  Manila,  we  give  Filipinos  to  un- 
derstand that  we  have  come  to  stay,  that  with  them 
we  are  going  to  inaugurate  a  colonial  system,  which  to 
them  means  exploitation.  AYe  let  them  know  that  we 
regard  them  as  an  inferior  race,  we  tell  them  that  for 
their  own  good  we  propose  to  assume  the  mastership 
over  them,  direct  their  energies,  make  their  labor  more 
productive.  But  we  purpose  to  take  for  ourselves  that 
increased  productiveness,  and  how  this  is  going  to 
be  for  the  good  of  Filipinos  they  fail  to  see.  This  is 
what  Filipinos  who  first  welcomed  us  as  liberators 
have  come  to  believe  our  occupation  means.  True, 
the  protests  against  such  a  course  have  been  loud,  if 
unavailing,  in  the  United  States,  but  these  protests 
have  been  as  carefully  kept  from  the  ears  of  Filipinos 
as  strict  cable  censorship  could  make  possible.  So 
these  people  of  the  Philippines,  kept  in  ignorance  of 
the  sentiment  in  their  favor  m  America  as  far  as  that 
were  possible  to  the  Administration,  came  to  the  be- 
lief, as  the  cable  censorship  was  imposed,  that  such 
sentiment  had  flickered  out,  that  the  counter  senti- 
ment was  the  prevailing  one  in  America,  that  justice  at 
American  hands  they  need  not  expect,  that  thoy  had 
but  to  choose  between  submission  to  American  master- 
ship and  force;  and  as  men  seeking  liberty,  revolting 


118  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

.it  servility,  with  the  courage  to  do  and  dare,  they 
chose  force,  unsheathed  the  sword. 

And  at  men  thus  showing  themselves  ready  to  die  for 
the  liberty  that  is  theirs  as  the  inalienable  birthright 
of  man,  men  deserving  a  better  fate,  we  are  not  dis- 
posed to  scoff  and  scorn.  Nor  can  we  gloat  over  the 
killing  or  seriously  wounding  of  5,000  of  these  men 
brave  enough  to  dare  and  die,  men  sacrificed  in  the 
cause  of  liberty.  Let  us  hope  their  sacrifice  may  not 
be  in  vain;  let  us  hope  that  such  sacrifice  will  strike  a 
responsive  chord  in  American  hearts,  let  us  not  force 
men  to  choose  between  submission  and  death  who  have 
the  nobleness  to  unfurl  the  battle  flags  of  liberty  and 
the  courage  to  suffer  death.  Let  us  accord  to  them 
that  liberty  which  we  should  never  have  denied. 

Those  who  thus  talk  of  withdrawing  from  the  Philip- 
pines, and  leaving  the  Filipinos  free  to  constitute  a 
government  of  their  own  choosing  are  assailed  as  cow- 
ardly. But  the  coward  is  he  who  believing  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  free  government  dares  not  proclaim  his  be- 
lief, but  stifling  his  feelings  chimes  in  with  the  tide. 
It  is  of  him  who  opposes  himself  to  this  tide,  who  bares 
himself  to  the  taunts  of  traitor,  who  stands  unflinch- 
ingly by  his  convictions,  and  in  opposition  to  our  im- 
posing our  rule  upon  the  Philippines  that  courage  is 
demanded.  To  join  in  with  the  Administration,  to 
trample  under  foot  the  doctrine  of  liberty,  to  scorn  the 
traditions  of  our  country,  to  overturn  the  very  basic 
principles  of  our  government,  to  supplant  them  with 
monarchical  principles  takes  no  courage  now.  Later 
it  may,  and  then  we  will  see  who  among  the  numerous 
pack  who  now  cry  traitor  are  cowards,  and  as  such  be 
quick  to  desert  the  discredited  Administration,  as  rats 
the  sinking  ship;  who  the  courage  to  stand  by  the  Ad- 
ministration and  proclaim  the  superiority  of  monarchi- 
cal over  democratic  principles?    Indeed,  we  much  in- 


OUR    DAY    OF    t>()RROW.  119 

cline  to  believe  that  the  head  of  the  Administration 
will  himself  appear  among  the  cowards,  that  the  Ad- 
ministration will  be  lacking  in  the  courage  to  stand  by 
those  who  have  the  courage  to  stand  by  it. 

Meanwhile  we  are  told  that  vengeance  must  be 
wreaked  on  the  Filipinos.  But  is  this  a  Christian 
spirit?  It  is  the  old  law  of  an  eye  for  an  eye  and  a 
tooth  for  a  tooth,  regardless  of  the  circumstances  that 
led  to  the  first  loss,  regardless  of  justice,  for  him  who 
suffered  the  loss  may  have  been  the  aggressor.  Ven- 
geance, a  mere  thirst  for  blood  is  a  brutal  passion.  To 
us  the  idea  of  seeking  vengeance  is  repellant.  For  our 
part  we  believe  our  first  duty  lies  not  in  avenging  our 
losses,  but  in  rendering  Justice.  To  spill  blood  for 
mere  vengeance  is  murder.  Again  are  we  told  that  it 
is  un-American  to  oppose  the  policy  of  the  Adminis- 
tration. But  wherein  is  it  un-American  to  oppose  a 
policy  that  is  as  repellant  to  our  American  notions  of 
sound  foreign  policy  as  laid  down  by  Washington  as  it 
is  slavishly  copied  after  the  British  colonial  policy  as 
policy  can  be?  Bather  would  we  say  that  the  Admin- 
istration policy  is  anti-American  and  pro-British. 

Further,  to  speak  as  we  have  been  speaking,  is  to 
invite  the  charge  of  treason.  To  strive  to  prevent 
Filipinos  from  attacking  our  flag  by  showing  that  that 
flag  waves  over  some  at  least  in  America  who  would  do 
them  justice  is  treason;  to  strive  to  prevent  that  flag 
from  being  unfurled  in  the  Philippines  as  the  banner 
of  oppression  is  treason  to  the  flag,  the  flag  of  liberty; 
to  strive  to  keep  unsullied  that  flag,  the  synonym  of 
equality  and  liberty  the  world  over,  save  alone  in  the 
Philippines,  is  treason.  AVe  scorn  those  who  make  the 
charge. 

The  blood  of  our  soldiers  in  the  Philippines  lies  at 
the  doors  of  those  who  have  denied  to  the  Filipinos 
that  which  we  should  have  accorded  to  them  as  a  right. 


120  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

that  which  they  had  a  right  to  expect  at  our  hands. 
If  we  appear  in  the  Philippines  not  to  accord  them 
their  rights  but  to  deny  them  the  right  of  self-govern- 
ment, not  to  free  them  from  oppression,  but  exalt 
ourselves  as  masters  and  treat  them  as  a  servile  race, 
we  cannot  but  expect  attacks  on  our  soldiers  and  blood- 
shed, for  we  are  there  as  enemies  of  the  people,  not  as 
friends.  No  sophistry  can  hide  this  fact,  and  if  we 
remain  in  the  Philippines  as  enemies  as  enemies  we 
will  be  treated.  At  the  regrettable  occurrence  at 
Manila  on  Sunday  last  we  have  no  cause  to  be  sur- 
prised. As  Senator  Hale  says:  "  If  the  treaty  had  been 
made  as  it  ought  to  have  been  made,  putting  the  Phil- 
ippines on  the  same  basis  as  Cuba,  no  trouble  would 
have  arisen,  or  if  the  managers  of  the  treaty  had  con- 
sented to  an  amendment  on  this  line,  or,  still  further, 
if  they  had  agreed  to  the  passage  of  a  joint  resolution 
declaring  Congress  did  not  expect  permanent  occupa- 
tion there  would  have  been  no  trouble  of  this  kind." 

Again,  as  said  Agoncillo  on  his  flight  to  Canada:  "  It 
is  too  bad.  I  came  to  your  country  to  offer  you  the 
friendship  of  my  people — to  give  you  our  trade  and 
pay  you  all  the  expenses  of  obtaining  our  freedom  for 
us  from  Spain.  In  return  you  refuse  to  even  listen  to 
me.  If  you  had  been  only  willing  to  listen  to  w^hat  I 
have  to  offer,  all  of  this  trouble  could  have  been 
averted.  It  is  not  of  the  seeking  of  my  people.  I  am 
sorry." 

Some  may  scoff  at  this.  We  do  not.  It  is  wrapt 
in  too  much  pathos.  AVe  too,  are  sorry,  unutterably 
sorry,  and  as  an  American  inexpressibly  mortified  that 
it  should  be  so. 


SHALL  MONEY  RULE  OR  MONEY  SERVE? 

[February  19lh,  1898.] 

MAN  rises  above  mere  brute  creation  by  the  pos- 
session of  one  great  power,  the  power  of  asso-l 
ciation  that  makes  it  possible  for  him  to 
co-operate  with  his  fellows  for  conquest  over  the  forces 
of  nature,  conquests  that  would  be  quite  out  of  the 
question  without  co-operation.  And  naturally  the 
development  of  this  power  of  association  has  marked 
the  progress  of  man's  conquests  over  nature  and  the 
advance  of  civilization. 

As  the  individual  man  has  become  less  dependent 
on  the  productions  of  his  own  labor  for  supplying  his 
needs  and  has  come  more  and  more  to  put  reliance  in 
the  labor  of  his  fellow-men,  having  confidence  in  his 
ability  to  dispose  of  the  surplus  products  of  his  labor 
for  the  surplus  products  of  others'  labor,  and  so  supply 
himself  with  those  things  needed  for  his  maintenance 
or  comfort,  but  not  produced  by  his  own  labor,  his 
power  to  create  wealth  has  increased,  and  there  has 
come  advancement  in  his  intellectual  and  material 
well  being.  His  power  to  create  wealth  has  increased 
because  more  continuous  application  in  one  line  of 
work  has  brought  increased  skillfulness.  Not  only 
this  but  the  waste  of  time  inseparable  from  taking  up 
and  dropping  different  kinds  of  tasks  as  man  must 
when  he  must  produce  all  that  he  consumes,  cater  to 
his  own  wants  or  go  without,  has  been  diminished. 
And  with  time  saved  and  increased  dexterity  there  of 
course  comes  increased  productiveness  of  labor.  Then 
such  application  to  a  narrower  range  of  work  centers 
the  mind  more  and  more  upon  the  work  at  hand,  and 


122  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

leads  to  the  improvement  of  tools  and  so  again  to  in- 
creased productiveness.  Thus  labor  becomes  more 
productive  as  men  depend  more  and  more  upon  the  co- 
operation of  their  fellow-men. 

So  it  is  that,  throughout  the  world,  the  advancement 
of  men  and  nations  is  marked  by  the  degree  to  which 
they  have  succeeded  in  carrying  the  diversification  of 
employments.  Thus  in  the  Australian  aborigine  we 
find  the  very  lowest  type  of  man,  a  man  who  lives  al- 
most entirely  within  himself  and  without  co-operation 
with  his  fellows,  who  makes  his  own  rude  weapons  and 
gathers  his  own  poor  food  which  he  eats  uncooked,  who 
rarely  if  ever  exchanges  any  part  of  the  product  of  his 
labor  for  a  part  of  the  product  of  another's  labor. 

When  we  go  up  even  one  step  higher  where  we  find 
men  associated  in  the  savage  tribe  we  see  marks  of 
gain,  of  profit,  from  such  association,  a  greater  com- 
mand over  the  resources  of  nature,  a  much  bettor  liv- 
ing than  the  Australian  ever  enjoys.  Thus  among  the 
North  American  Indians  there  was  a  crude  diversifica- 
tion of  employments.  The  men  sought  provender  by 
the  chase,  the  women  were  driven  to  agriculture,  some 
again  made  a  specialty  of  fabricating  the  weapons  of 
war  and  the  chase.  And  thus  making  a  specialty,  de- 
voting their  time  to  such  work,  they  became  more 
skilled  at  it  than  the  average  hunter,  could  produce 
weapons  with  less  effort  and  expenditure  of  time,  and 
so  it  became  mutually  advantageous  for  the  hunter  to 
devote  himself  to  the  chase,  the  maker  of  weapons  to 
their  fabrication,  for  both  could,  by  so  doing,  command 
a  more  certain  livelihood. 

Thus  the  hunter  could  do  better  by  buying  his  wea- 
pons with  the  products  of  the  chase  than  if  he  took 
time  from  the  hunt  to  make  his  own  weapons,  for  dur- 
ing such  time  he  could  capture  more  game  than  he 
would  have  to  pay  for  the  weapons  he  could  make  for 


SHALL    MONEY    RULE    OK   MONEY    SERVE  ?        123 

himself  in  the  same  length  of  time.  And  yet  the  fabri- 
cator of  such  weapons  would  also  do  better,  for  becom- 
ing much  skilled  by  his  constant  application  he  could 
get  for  his  weapons  more  game  than  he  could  capture 
for  himself  if  he  occupied  the  time  spent  in  making 
such  weapons  in  hunting  for  himself.  So  in  such  ex- 
change it  is  evident  there  is  mutual  advantage  to  both 
hunter  and  maker  of  weapons.  By  co-operating  with 
one  another  they  both  gain.  And  yet  it  is  clear  that 
without  the  power  that  association  brings,  this  co-op- 
eration and  gain  would  be  out  of  the  question,  for 
no  savage  could  apply  himself  solely  to  the  making 
of  weapons  if  he  could  not  rely  upon  other  men  to  keep 
him  in  food  in  return  for  supplying  them  with  weapons. 
And  so  with  the  hunter.  If  isolated  he  would  have  to 
be  all-sufficient  to  himself,  have  to  make  his  own 
weapons  and  do  his  own  hunting,  have  to  get  on  with 
cruder  weapons  and  lead  a  more  precarious  existence 
than  when  living  in  co-operation  with  his  fellow-men. 

So  we  see  that  association  is  the  first  requisite  of 
progress;  it  is  the  greatest  need  of  man;  it  is  the  power 
that  lifts  him  above  brute  creation,  that  gives  man  his 
superiority,  that  is  in  fact  his  distinguishing  trait.  He 
alone,  unless  we  must  except  some  high  orders  of  insect 
life,  is  endowed  with  the  intellect  that  fits  him  to  co- 
operate with  his  fellows,  to  direct  his  energies  to  one 
line  of  production  and  produce  much  more  of  some 
article  than  he  needs,  in  confident  belief  that  he  can 
dispose  of  the  surplus  of  such  product  produced  beyond 
his  needs  for  the  products  of  others  which  he  does  not 
produce  for  himself  and  which  he  must  have  to  live.  To 
such  co-operation,  based  as  it  is  on  a  mutually  advan- 
tageous exchange  of  surplus  products,  the  first  requisite 
is  the  power  to  communicate,  to  arrive  at  a  common 
understanding,  and  so  arrange  a  basis  upon  which  to 
make  the  exchanges.    And  this  power  of  communica- 


124  THE    OltEAT    ISSUES. 

tion  man  has  been  given  in  the  power  of  speech,  a  power 
that  we  find  more  highly  developed  just  as  we  advance 
along  the  stages  of  civilization  and  as  the  demands 
upon  language  for  communication  of  ideas,  made  nec- 
essary by  greater  diversification  of  employments  and 
interchange  of  goods,  have  been  increased.  In  short, 
language  has  been  evolved  and  is  being  continually 
evolved  and  made  more  capable  of  expressing  thought, 
just  as  association  of  men  has  grown  more  intimate  and 
the  need  of  language  greater. 

When  association  has  not  been  carried  far  and  co- 
operation is  in  its  infancy;  when  exchanges  are  few  and 
direct,  they  can  well  be  carried  on  by  barter.  Thus 
there  is  no  difficulty  experienced  in  the  savage  tribe  in 
making  an  exchange  of  skins  and  food  for  weapons  of 
the  chase.  The  exchange  is  a  direct  one,  and  the  need 
of  a  common  medium  of  exchange  is  little  felt.  But  if 
we  go  up  a  step  further  in  Indian  life  and  find  some 
making  a  specialty  of  making  moccasins,  others  a  spe- 
cialty of  making  snow-shoes,  others  of  fishing,  others 
of  husbandry,  and  still  others  of  hunting,  though  not 
to  the  exclusion  of  other  employments,  the  need  of 
a  common  medium  of  exchange  will  be  greatly  felt. 
Indeed,  such  a  medium  must  be  provided  or  such  di- 
versification of  employments  will  be  retarded,  be  pre- 
vented from  developing. 

The  need  of  money  arises  out  of  the  various  wants 
of  the  different  producers,  and  which  make  exchange 
by  barter  a  most  troublesome  undertaking.  Thus  the 
hunter  may  w^ant  some  arrows,  but  the  arrow  maker, 
liaving  all  the  food  he  wants,  will  not  care  to  give  such 
hunter  arrows  for  his  food.  Yet  the  maker  of  mocca- 
sins may  want  badly  the  food  that  the  hunter  has  to 
offer,  but  the  hunter  not  being  in  need  of  a  pnir  of 
moccasins  will  not  care  to  make  the  exchange.  So  ex- 
changes are  deadlocked  until,  after  much  w^aste  of  time. 


SHALL    MONEY    EULE    OR    MONEY    SERVE  ?       125 

much  expenditure  of  energy,  it  is  found  that  the  arrow 
maker  would  like  to  purcliabc  a  pair  of  moccabius. 
Then  the  way  to  a  mutual  exchange  is  opened,  the 
hunter,  and  the  arrow  maker  and  the  maker  of  mocca- 
sins coming  together  in  a  triangular  trade.  But  if  it 
happens  that  the  hunter  does  not  care  to  take  in  arrows 
the  worth  of  a  pair  of  moccasins,  or  has  not  in  food  tlie 
Avorth  of  the  moccasins,  the  trade  will  be  balked,  for 
neither  the  arrow  maker  can  take  nor  the  moccasin 
maker  give  half  a  moccasin.  So  there  must  be  more 
bickering,  the  hunter  must  take  more  arrows  than  he 
desires  to  complete  the  trade,  or  if  he  has  not,  in  food, 
the  price  of  the  pair  of  moccasins  the  trade  Avill  be 
iialted  until  some  other  hunter  may  be  found  wanting 
to  exchange  a  surplus  of  food  for  arrows.  Such  being 
the  difficulties  of  carrying  on  a  simple  three-cornered 
trade  by  barter,  how  infinitely  greater  would  be  the 
difficulties  of  conducting  a  four-cornered  or  five-cor- 
nered or  many  times  five-cornered  trade  by  barter? 
Indeed,  the  difficulties  Avould  be  so  great  as  to  interdict 
such  trade  and  make  impossible  the  diversification  of 
employments  that  would  call  for  such  trade. 

Even  in  such  a  very  simple  trade  we  see  how  wasteful 
of  time  and  energy  exchange  by  barter  is  and  how  great 
is  the  saving  of  making  exchanges  by  means  of  a  com- 
mon medium  of  exchange.  It  follows,  of  course,  that 
the  great  difficulties  and  costs  of  effecting  exchanges 
l)y  barter  must  rest  as  a  heavy  tax  on  production,  and 
thus  cut  into  the  advantages  derived  from  the  diver- 
sification of  employment  and  increased  productiveness 
of  labor  resultant  therefrom.  If  such  increased  pro- 
ductiveness is  more  than  absorbed  by  the  time  wasted 
in  making  exchanges,  such  diversification  of  employ- 
ment will  be  disadvantageous  rather  than  the  reverso; 
then  will  come  a  check  to  such  diversification  and  a 
check  to  progress. 


126  TJIP;    CKKAT    ISSUES. 

So  it  is  that  money  is  most  important  as  an  instru- 
ment of  association.  After  association  has  reached  a 
certain  stage,  and  not  a  very  advanced  stage  either, 
money  is  necessary  in  order  to  make  further  and  more 
intimate  association  possible.  So  it  can  be  truly  af- 
firmed that  money  is  only  second  to  language  itself  as 
an  instrumcDt  of  association,  and,  v.e  repeat,  without 
such  association  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  civ- 
ilization, man  could  not  rise  above  the  level  of  brute 
animals,  and  without  money  such  association  would  be 
well  nigh  impossible,  for  men  being  unable  to  exchange 
their  surplus  products  by  the  costly  methods  of  barter, 
methods  so  costly  as  to  interdict  many  exchanges, 
could  not  place  reliance  on  the  products  of  their  fel- 
lows, every  family  would  have  to  be  sufficient  unto  it- 
self, there  could  be  no  diversification  of  employments, 
no  increased  productiveness  of  labor  that  comes  from 
such  diversification,  no  progress,  no  advance  in  civili- 
zation. And  to  effect  these  exchanges  so  necessary  to 
advance  civilization  most  smoothly  we  must  have  hon- 
est money.  To  effect  such  exchanges  by  the  use  of  a 
money  of  constantly  appreciating  purchasing  power 
that  forces  producers  to  submit  to  the  levying  of  a  trib- 
ute on  everything  they  sell  in  the  interest  of  the  cred- 
itor classes  must  obviously  discourage  production  by 
absorbing  part  of  the  profits  of  production  belonging 
of  right  to  the  producer,  thus  retard  the  accumulation 
of  wealth,  check  progress,  bring  stagnation  where  there 
;  liould  be  activity,  impoverishment  and  suffering  where 
there  should  be  prosperity  and  happiness. 

^loreover,  a  currency  subject  to  violent  changes  in 
volume,  as  a  currency  issued  and  controlled  by  the 
lianks  would  be,  would  even  more  seriously  discourage 
the  production  of  wealth,  for  changes  in  volume  would 
bring  about  changes  in  value,  and  hence  fluctuations  in 
prices  which  would  engender  a  spirit  of  speculation. 


SHALL   MONET   EULE   OR   JIOXEY   SERVE  ?       12? 

And  such  speculation,  bad  enough  at  best  as  sure  to 
discourage  production,  would  be  perfectly  intolerable, 
woefully  deadening  to  industry,  from  the  fact  that 
those  controlling  the  volume  of  currency  would  gam- 
ble with  loaded  dice,  that  the  speculative  cliques  be- 
hind the  banks  would  have  a  foreknowledge  of 
changes  in  prices  that  they  would  be  instrumental  in 
bringing  about,  and  so  they  would  be  able  to  strip  pro- 
ducers of  the  products  of  their  toil  with  unfailing  cer- 
tainty. So  we  see  the  evils  of  an  appreciating  and 
fluctuating  measure  of  value.  A  continued  deprecia- 
tion of  the  measure  of  value  so  great  as  to  cause  a  con- 
tinued rise  in  prices  so  violent  as  to  wrong  creditors 
and  tempt  producers  to  bend  tlieir  energies  to  the  ac- 
cumulation of  wealth  by  engaging  in  speculation  rather 
than  by  productive  enterprise  will  also  retard  progress. 

So  we  see  that  money,  though  the  great  civilizer, 
may  be  also  the  degrader  of  mankind.  It  has  been  a 
blessing  to  the  human  race,  yet  it  has  been  a  curse. 
It  has  made  possible  the  building  up  of  great  civiliza- 
tions, yet  it  has  been  the  means  of  pulling  them  down. 
Created  and  used  as  the  servant  of  man  it  has  so  cheap- 
ened and  facilitated  the  exchange  of  the  surplus  prod- 
ucts of  labor  as  to  give  great  incentive  to  the  diversi- 
fication of  industries,  great  stimulation  to  the  produc- 
tion of  wealth,  the  progress  and  advancement  of  the 
human  race,  but  when  it  has  been  used  by  scheming 
and  unscrupulous  men  as  a  means  for  the  gathering  of 
M'ealth  into  a  few  hands,  for  the  exaltation  of  riches 
and  the  degradation,  the  enslavement  of  mankind,  em- 
pires have  been  sapped  of  their  vitality  by  grinding- 
poverty  at  the  bottom  and  corruption  at  the  top  and 
tottered  to  their  fall  under  its  baneful  influence. 

It  was  thus  Rome  grew  and  crumbled,  grew  while 
money  was  the  servant,  tottered  when  money  was  the 
master  and  man  the  slave,  grew  while  jnoney  was  hon- 


128  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

est  and  there  was  a  just  distribution  of  the  products 
of  industry,  tottered  when  money  was  made  dishonest, 
riches  exalted,  man  degraded.  In  the  great  years  of 
the  Eoman  Republic,  when  Italy  was  prosperous,  when 
the  tillers  were  the  owners  of  the  soil,  when  Rome  was 
rent  neitherbydissensions  from  within  nor  disturbances 
from  without,  the  money  of  Rome,  so  Del  Mar  tells  us, 
was  neither  gold  nor  silver,  but  the  Ass,  a  counter  of 
base  metal,  the  greenback  of  Roman  days,  circulating 
not  at  its  bullion  value,  but  at  a  value  regulated  by  a 
wise  control  of  the  volume  issued  so  as  to  preserve  the 
relations  between  the  supply  of  and  demand  for  money, 
and  so  keep  money  stable  in  purchasing  power,  main- 
tain an  honest  Ass  that  would  protect  the  rights  of 
debtors  and  creditors  alike,  and  thus  give  an  assurance 
to  wealth  producers  of  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of 
their  toil.  And  so  such  wealth  producers  prospered, 
so  Rome  prospered  and  grew  and  extended  her  con- 
quests. 

But  her  conquests  turned  great  hoards  of  gold  and 
silver,  the  spoils  of  many  a  triumph,  into  Rome,  and 
such  gold  and  silver  was  made  the  money  of  Rome,  the 
volume  of  money  thenceforth  to  be  made  dependent 
not  upon  the  demands  of  commerce  but  the  supplies 
of  the  precious  metals.  And  the  Asia  that  came  under 
Roman  dominion  yielded  to  Rome  but  one  great  stock 
of  gold  and  silver,  for  the  precious  metals  she  gave  up 
to  the  Roman  conquerors  were  the  hoards  of  cen- 
turies. Once  drained  of  these  hoards  she  could  give  no 
more.  So  also  did  the  production  of  the  silver  mines 
of  Spain  fall  off  before  the  empire  was  enthroned  upon 
the  ruins  of  the  republic  and  a  degraded  citizenship, 
and  along  about  200  A.D.  silver  was  demonetized  while 
gold  was  drained  to  the  East  in  payment  for  rich 
fabrics  demanded  by  the  patricians  reveling  in  un- 
earned riches.     And  so  money  grew  dearer;  as  it  grew 


SHALL   MONEY   RULE   OR   MONET   SERVE  ?       129 

dearer  all  debts  became  more  burdensome,  took  more 
of  the  products  of  toil  to  pay.  The  agriculturist,  in 
place  of  being  well-to-do  and  honored  was  impoverished 
and  despised;  finally  he  was  bankrupted  and  became 
the  slave  of  his  creditor.  And  then  it  was  that  Rome 
tottered,  for  the  tillers  of  the  soil,  striving  to  save 
themselves  from  bankruptcy  and  slavery,  impoverished 
their  fields,  but  impoverished  them  in  vain.  The  till- 
ers of  the  soil  became  slaves,  intelligent  and  careful 
agriculture  became  a  thing  of  the  past,  Rome  was 
obliged  to  look  outside  of  Italy  for  her  food.  And 
while  the  tillers  of  the  soil  Avere  enslaved,  the  creditor 
classes,  profiting  from  unearned  gains,  became  corrupt, 
and  so  Rome  fell  weakened  at  the  bottom,  weakened 
at  the  top.  Such  was  the  penalty  of  the  appreciation 
of  money  that  made  money  the  master,  man  the  slave, 
exalted  riches,  degraded  man;  thus  we  are  given  in  the 
history  of  Rome  an  illustration  of  money  as  civilizer 
and  degrader. 

And  on  much  the  same  road  is  the  American  Re- 
public traveling.  Shall  we  profit  from  the  example  of 
Rome  or  shall  we  not?  Shall  we  permit  the  wrong  to 
be  exalted  and  the  right  dethroned?  Shall  we  crown 
money  our  master,  our  king,  our  god,  and  build  up  a 
moneyed  oligarchy  on  the  ruins  of  our  republic,  or 
shall  we  insist  that  money  was  made  to  serve,  not  to 
rule,  and  go  forth  to  further  and  greater  conquests, 
not  over  nations  but  the  forces  of  nature,  so  gather 
greater  and  greater  riches  equitably  divided  among  our 
people  and  so  build  up  a  nation  of  contented  and  pros- 
perous freemen,  a  republic  of  wealth  and  greatness  and 
power  such  as  our  forefathers  never  dreamed  of? 

It  lies  within  our  power  to  take  either  course.  The 
course  of  degradation  is  laid  open  before  us  by  those 
who  would  profit  from  the  enslavement  of  our  people, 
who  would  be  pleased  to  see  our  Republic  supplanted 


130  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

by  a  moneyed  oligarchy.  On  this  course  we  have  al- 
ready embarked.  We  are  making  money  dear  and  man 
clicap,  and  purj^uit  of  such  a  course  can  have  but  one 
ending.  It  can  but  result  in  laying  our  producing 
classes  under  an  ever-growing  tribute  to  our  new  and 
growing  oligarchy,  the  oligarchy  of  wealth,  in  placing 
a  blight  upon  industry  by  taking  from  producers,  who 
me  debtors,  more  than  they  are  justly  obligated  to  pay 
iheir  creditors,  by  undermining  profits  through  depre- 
ciation of  property,  in  finally  transferring  the  property 
of  debtors  to  their  creditors,  leaving  one  class  enslaved, 
the  other  exalted.  Thus  by  increasing  the  tax  put  on 
the  production  and  distribution  of  wealth  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  creditor  classes,  by  putting  an  increased 
tax  upon  association  we  must  discourage  the  diversi- 
fication of  industries  and  so  check  the  development  of 
our  resources,  we  do  in  fact  put  a  tax  upon  civilization. 
And  Mr.  McKinley,  who  is  now,  at  least  nominally, 
directing  the  affairs  of  the  national  government,  who 
is  lending  himself  to  those  who  would  make  money  the 
master,  man  the  slave,  who  thus  lent  himself  to  a 
course  that  must  bring  ruin  to  his  countrymen  for  the 
Presidency,  is  not  blind  to  the  results  of  his  course, 
not  unaware  that  the  policy  he  lends  himself  to  must 
make  money  dear  and  man  cheap,  and  is  cognizant  that 
this  must  lead  to  the  enrichment  of  the  moneyed  oli- 
garchy and  the  degradation  of  the  masses  of  our  peo- 
ple. But  to  this  he  has  lent  himself  for  the  Presidency, 
to  exalt  himself  he  has  sacrificed  his  countrymen.  This 
we  would  not  venture  to  say  of  the  President,  for  of 
all  men  he  is  the  last  one  we  would  willingly  traduce, 
if  his  own  words  did  not  make  it  unmistakably  clear 
that  he  did  see  once,  even  if  he  finds  convenient  not  to 
see  now,  that  to  commit  our  country  to  the  gold  stand- 
ard is  to  make  money  dear,  that  to  make  money  dear 
is  to  cheapen  everything  else— make  money  the  mas- 


SHALL    MONEY    RULE    OR    MONEY    SERVE  ?       131 

ter,  everything  else  its  servant,  and  so  exalt  the  owners 
of  money  and  degrade  mankind.  In  an  address  before 
the  Ohio  Republican  League  at  Toledo,  Ohio,  February 
12th,  1891,  which  was  understood  to  be  a  bid  for  the 
Republican  nomination  for  President  in  1893,  Mr. 
McKinley  referred  to  Mr.  Cleveland's  efforts  to  de- 
monetize silver  in  this  wise: 

"  During  all  of  his  years  at  the  head  of  the  govern- 
ment he  was  dishonoring  one  of  our  precious  metals, 
one  of  our  own  great  products,  discrediting  silver  and 
enhancing  the  price  of  gold.  He  endeavored  even  be- 
fore his  inauguration  to  office  to  stop  the  coinage  of 
pilver  dollars,  and  afterward,  and  to  the  end  of  his  ad- 
ministration, persistently  used  his  power  to  that  end. 
He  was  determined  to  contract  the  circulating  medium 
and  demonetize  one  of  the  coins  of  commerce,  limit  the 
volume  of  money  among  the  people,  make  money  scarce 
and  therefore  dear.  He  would  have  increased  the  value 
of  money  and  diminished  the  value  of  everything  else 
— money  the  master,  everything  else  its  servant.  Ho 
was  not  thinking  of  *  the  poor '  then.  He  had  left 
*  their  side.'  He  was  not  '  standing  forth  in  their  de- 
fense.' Cheap  coats,  cheap  lalior  and  dear  money;  the 
sponsor  and  promoter  of  these  professing  to  stand 
guard  over  the  welfare  of  the  poor  and  lowly!  Was 
there  ever  more  glaring  inconsistency  or  reckless  as- 
sumption ?  " 

Rut  it  was  fated  that  the  Republican  nomination  for 
the  presidency  should  not  be  offered  him  until  1896, 
that  it  should  then  be  offered  him  at  the  hands  of  the 
advocates  of  dear  money  and  cbrnp  moTi,  not  the  op- 
ponents. And  from  those  hands,  hands  he  had  declared 
unclean,  he  accepted  it. 


MONEY  AND  POPULISM. 

[June  9th,  IGOO.j 

HOW  is  our  money  now  issued?  The  government 
issues  it  to  those  who  work  for  gold,  dig  it  out 
of  the  bowels  of  the  earth,  wash  it  out  of  the 
river  sands,  or  to  those  who  hire  others  to  dig  and  wash 
for  them,  they  having  become,  under  law,  by  the  acci- 
dents of  discovery,  by  purchase  or  otherwise,  sole  pos- 
sessors of  gold-bearing  rocks  and  sands.  To  those  who 
thus  get  gold,  or  buy  it  or  get  it  by  trade  and  take  it  to 
the  mints,  the  government  issues  money.  It  puts  its 
stamp  upon  such  gold  and  that  stamp  makes  it  money. 
So  does  our  government  now  issue  money.  It  issues  it 
to  those  who  work  for  gold.  Once  it  also  issued  money 
to  those  who  worked  for  silver — issued  it  first  in  like 
manner,  later  by  the  purchase  of  silver.  But  it  does 
not  so  issue  money  now.  It  issues  money  only  to  those 
who  work  for  gold,  and  to  those  who  organize  banks 
under  the  national  bank  law,  buy  government  bonds 
and  deposit  such  bonds  with  the  government.  Under 
our  monetary  laws  these  are  the  privileged  ones  to 
whom  the  government  issues  money — to  the  possessors 
of  gold  and  to  national  banks  that  are  the  possessors 
of  government  bonds. 

In  Civil  War  time  the  government  did  something 
more  than  this.  Money  was  then  issued  not  alone  to 
those  who  worked  for  gold  or  silver  for  their  own 
profit.  It  was  issued  to  those  who  Avorked  for  the  gov- 
ernment, gave  their  services  to  the  government.  Thus 
the  government  issued  the  greenback  currency.  And 
how  would  we  Populists  have  money  issued  to-day? 
To  those  who  work  for  gold  for  themselves?     No;  to 


MONEY   AND    POPULISM.  133 

those  who  work  or  would  work  for  the  government  for 
the  creation  of  public  works  of  value.  And  this  money 
we  would  have  irredeemable  in  gold  or  coin  certainly, 
but  not  irredeemable.  We  would  have  it  redeemable 
in  the  net  earnings  of  the  public  works  for  the  creation 
of  which  it  was  issued.  Out  of  such  earnings  we  would 
have  it  retired,  thus  making  place  for  the  issue  of  more 
currency  of  the  same  kind  for  the  creation  of  other 
public  works.  Thus  would  we  have  a  perpetual  cycle 
of  issue  and  redemption  and  have  works  of  public  util- 
ity, new  railway  and  telegraph  lines  for  example,  irriga- 
tion works,  etc.,  paid  for  out  of  earnings  that  now  go  to 
pay  interest  on  capital.  And  we  think  there  is  better 
foundation  in  governmental  ethics  for  the  issue  of  such 
a  currency  than  there  is  for  the  issue  of  a  gold  cur- 
rency. Indeed,  we  are  sure  there  is,  sure  that  the 
issue  of  money  by  the  government  and  to  those  who 
would  work  for  the  government,  give  their  labor  to  the 
government,  would  be  more  in  accord  with  the  rules 
of  political  ethics  than  is  the  issue  of  money  by  the 
government  to  those  who  work  for  gold  and  for  them- 
selves. In  fact,  we  cannot  see  how  anyone  can  honest- 
ly dispute  this. 

A  dollar  bill  is  not  a  thing  of  value  in  itself;  no  more 
than  is  an  entry  made  on  the  pass-book  in  which  is 
kept  the  running  account  of  a  farmer  with  a  cross-roads 
store.  The  entry  made  in  such  book  is  a  record  of 
value  given  and  taken,  and  a  record  binding  only  on 
the  parties  to  the  transaction,  and  so  too  is  the  dol- 
Inr  bill  a  record  of  value  given  and  taken,  but  a  record 
l)inding  on  all  persons  in  the  community  as  certified  to 
liy  the  government  and  a  record  put  in  such  form  that 
it  may  readily  be  passed  from  hand  to  hand.  And  in 
essence  gold  coin  is  just  the  same  thing.  It  is  a  record 
of  value  given  and  taken  stamped  upon  a  most  expen- 
sive material.     And  the  possessor  of  such  coin  values 


131  Tin:    GliHAT    ISSUES. 

it  not  for  itbclf,  any  more  than  does  the  i^o.s.scssor  of 
the  dollar  bill  value  it  for  the  paper  of  which  it  is 
made,  but  because  it  is  a  check  that  will  be  honored 
by  all  men,  redeemed  by  all  tradesmen  in  their  wares. 
Th«  dollar,  whether  stamped  on  coin  or  paper,  is  in 
effect  a  check  which  certifies  that  the  possessor  has 
rendered  some  service,  given  something  of  value  to  the 
community  and  is  entitled  to  equal  value  from  the  com- 
munity in  return.  Hired  by  a  farmer,  you  labor  at 
fcome  allotted  task  on  the  farm,  help  in  making  that 
which  has  value.  And  given  dollar  bills  in  settlement 
for  your  toil,  what  do  you  get?  Bills  that  certify  that 
you  have  rendered  service  of  certain  value,  bills  that 
not  only  the  farmer  will  take  for  the  product  that  you 
help  him  to  make,  but  that  all  persons  will  take  for 
their  products,  and  that  will  therefore  enable  you  to  get 
such  things  from  the  community  as  you  want  to  a  value 
equal  to  the  value  of  the  service  you  have  rendered.  So 
it  is  that  money  by  its  nature  is  not  a  thing  of  value, 
but  a  representative  of  value,  that  coins  and  bills  are 
mere  counters  of  no  value  in  themselves,  but  that  we 
value  because  we  can  exchange  them  for  things  of 
value. 

Now  as  a  dollar  bill  is  a  record  of  value  given  and 
taken  it  is  of  inestimable  importance  that  it  should  be 
an  honest  record.  For  if  such  record  change  loss  will 
be  inflicted  on  someone.  We  have  said  possession  of  a 
dollar  bill  will  enable  him  who  has  earned  it  to  com- 
mand from  the  community,  at  such  times  and  in  such 
quantities  as  may  suit  his  convenience,  things  of  equal 
value  to  the  value  of  service  he  has  rendered.  But  if 
such  bill  change  in  value  while  he  has  it  in  his  pos- 
session he  may  not  be  able  to  command  as  great  value 
when  he  parts  with  it  as  he  gave  for  it.  Or,  again,  he 
may  be  able  to  command  a  greater  value.  And  in 
either  cas'e  there  will  of  necessity  be  a  disarrangement 


MONEY   AND    POPULISM.  135 

of  equities  that  will  cause  unsettlement  of  business  and 
work  injury.  An  appreciation  of  the  dollar  will  cause 
a  shrinkage  of  general  values  such  as  cannot  but 
paralyze  trade  and  industry,  for  such  shrinkage  must 
sap  the  profits  of  all  producers,  tend  to  reduce  debtors 
to  insolvency,  for  with  shrinkage  in  values  there  is  no 
shrinkage  of  debts,  and  so  destroy  confidence.  And  on 
the  other  hand  a  cheapening  of  the  dollar  such  as  will ; 
cause  an  inflation  of  general  values  inevitably  distracts 
men's  attention  from  their  legitimate  pursuits  by 
dazzling  them  with  a  show  of  the  speculator's  gains, 
and  leads  on  to  an  era  of  wild  speculative  inflation  that 
must  end  in  collapse  such  as  cannot  fail  to  give  a 
paralytic  shock  to  the  whole  industrial  fabric. 

For  ever  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  is  but 
one  way  for  a  people  to  gain  wealth,  and  that  is  to  pro- 
duce it  by  honest  toil.  They  cannot  gain  wealth  by 
despoiling  one  another  or  even  by  despoiling  other  peo- 
ples. And  those  things  which  conduce  to  honest  toil 
are  honest  measures  by  which  the  fruits  of  toil  are  dis- 
tributed. If  there  be  honest  measures  those  who  en- 
gage themselves  in  the  production  of  wealth,  seek 
wealth  by  producing  it,  not  by  despoiling  their  neigh- 
bors, will  receive  the  fruits  of  their  toil  and  be  encour- 
aged to  pursue  the  paths  of  honesty  and  wealth  pro- 
duction. If  there  be  not  honest  measures  they  will 
not  get  the  full  fruit  of  their  toil;  they  will  see  specu- 
lators revel  in  wealth  which  they  produce,  but  the  en- 
joyment of  which  seems  to  be  beyond  their  reach:  they 
will  be  discouraged.  Therefore  the  importance  of  hon- 
est measures. 

Now  w^e  have  seen  how  our  money  is  now  issued.  We 
have  stated  our  belief  that  it  is  is.<?ued  upon  a  principle 
that  has  no  warrant  in  political  ethics;  that  instead  of 
being  issued  to  those  who  work  for  gold  for  their  own 
profit  it  ought  to  be  issued  to  those  who  work  for  the 


136  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

government.  For  it  seems  only  right  that  the  govern- 
ment should  issue  its  money  to  those  who  give  it  value 
in  return.  To  single  out  the  producers  of  gold  above 
all  others,  issue  to  them  money  for  such  of  their  pro- 
duct as  they  may  deposit  at  the  mints,  and  deny  a  like 
privilege  to  the  producers  of  all  other  products,  thus 
according  to  the  holder  of  gold  an  exclusive  privilege, 
seems  wrong.  And  not  only  is  it  wrong  in  principle, 
but  it  is  grievous  in  results.  For  our  money  issued  in 
this  way  is  not  under  the  regulation  of  the  govern- 
ment. Its  issue  is  wholly  subject  to  the  production  of 
gold.  Much  gold  produced  and  much  money  will  be 
issued — little  gold  and  little  money.  And  while  this 
is  so  it  is  too  much  to  expect  that  we  should  have  an 
honest  measure  of  values.  For  the  production  of  gold 
varies  much.  No  one  commodity  is  of  unchangeable 
value  or  purchasing  power,  and  gold  is  no  exception  to 
the  rule.  The  issue  of  money  being  dependent  on  the 
production  of  gold  and  that  production  shrinking,  as  it 
often  has,  the  issue  of  money  must  shrink.  And  if  we 
cut  down  the  supply  of  anything  its  value  will,  the  de- 
mand remaining  the  same,  go  up.  And  as  for  the  de- 
mand for  money  it  never  does  remain  the  same.  In  a 
state  of  industrial  growth,  and  we  ought  to  so  manage 
that  such  state  would  be  a  constant  one,  it  must  stead- 
ily increase.  If  we  do  not  meet  such  increasing  de- 
mand with  a  constant  increase  in  the  supply  of  money 
we  must  then  have  a  rise  in  the  value  of  money  and  a 
shrinkage  in  the  value  of  things  generally.  And  such 
shrinkage  will  promptly  put  a  brake  on  industrial 
growth. 

Now  do  we  want  to  have  such  a  brake  put  upon  our 
industrial  growth  intermittingly?  Surely  do  we  not. 
And  as  we  do  not  want  to  see  such  brake  applied  we 
nmst  see  that  the  issue  of  money  is  so  regulated  that 
the  supply  will  keep  pace  with  the  demand.     While  we 


MONEY   AND    POPULISM.  137 

issue  money  only  to  those  and  to  all  those  who  deposit 
gold  with  the  government  this  can  never  be.  For  such 
issue  puts  the  regulation  of  the  same  beyond  the  reach 
of  government  and  leaves  it  entirely  dependent  on  the 
offerings  of  gold  for  coinage  by  individuals  and  cor- 
porations, and  offerings  largely  dependent  in  turn  on 
the  production  of  gold.  And  the  issue  of  money  to 
those  who  might  bring  silver,  as  also  to  those  who 
bring  gold,  would  be  an  improvement  only  in  degree. 
It  would  not  bring  the  issue  of  money  under  the  regu- 
lation of  the  government.  It  would  leave  that  regu- 
lation primarily  to  accident  as  now.  Nor  is  the  issue 
of  money  to  those  national  banks  which  deposit  govern- 
ment bonds  as  a  pledge  for  the  redemption  of  such 
notes  going  to  materially  change  the  status  so  long  as 
redemption  of  all  such  money  is  required  in  gold.  And 
if  such  redemption  were  not  required,  or  such  require- 
ment disobserved  by  the  banks,  we  would  have  the  reg- 
ulation of  the  issue  of  money  put  further  than  ever  be- 
yond the  reach  of  the  government.  We  would  have 
the  banks,  that  now  would  be  interested  to  cause  a  fall 
in  money,  now  a  rise,  in  control  of  the  issue.  And  in 
such  case  it  would  be  natural  to  have  a  dollar  of  most 
changeable  value. 

It  is  indeed  supposable,  but  hardly  probable,  that 
the  banks  would  not  act  under  the  dictation  of  the 
speculative  cliques,  that  their  managements  would  be 
superior  to  such  influences,  that  consequently  the 
banks  would  be  managed  solely  with  an  eye  to  the 
profit  of  their  stockholders,  that  therefore  they  would 
increase  their  issues  of  currency  as  interest  rates  ro?*^- 
decrease  their  issues  as  interest  rates  fell.  And  this 
we  are  told  would  result  in  automatically  regulating  the 
issue  of  currency  in  response  to  the  demands  of  trad'' 
But  we  have  seen  interest  rates  rule  their  lowest  when 
the  country  was  suffering  from  a  money  famine  and 


138  THE   GREAT    ISSUES. 

prices  shrinking  disastrously.  At  such  times  have  wc 
seen  the  banks  offering  loans  to  the  restricted  class  of 
borrowers  that  they  cared  to  loan  to  at  all,  at  almost 
nominal  rates  of  interest.  Again  have  we  seen  inter- 
est rates  rise  just  as  the  money  famine  has  lifted,  as 
the  supply  of  money  has  increased.  And  this  we  can- 
not put  down  to  accident.  In  this  we  can  see  the 
working  of  a  natural  law.  For  as  prices  fall  profits  of 
those  engaged  in  industrial  undertakings  are  sapped 
and  men  grow  more  and  more  disposed  to  question 
their  solvency.  Hence  the  banks  grow  suspicious  of 
such  borrowers,  and  hesitate  more  and  more  to  respond 
to  their  requests  for  loans.  Consequently  such  bor- 
rowers find  it  almost  impossible  to  effect  loans  at  any 
rate  of  interest.  But  at  the  same  time,  and  because 
of  such  very  refusals  to  make  loans  to  those  engaged 
in  industrial  pursuits,  money  accumulates  in  the  banks, 
especially  in  the  financial  centers,  and  we  have  conges- 
tion. Then  while  shunning  loans  to  producers  of 
wealth  the  banks  seek  to  put  out  their  funds  on  stock 
exchange  securities.  Competition  in  the  placing  of 
such  loans  results  and  interest  rates  fall  down,  down, 
down.  After  a  while  there  comes  an  inflow  of  money 
from  some  quarter,  a  turn  upwards  in  the  trend  of  com- 
modity prices,  a  returning  readiness  of  loaners  of 
money  to  put  their  money  at  the  risk  of  industrial  un- 
dertakings, a  drawing  away  of  money  from  the  financial 
centers,  a  rising  of  interest  rates.  So  it  is  that  interest 
rates  would  make  a  false  guide  upon  which  to  regulate 
the  issue  of  currency.  The  price  level  of  commoQities, 
showing  the  purchasing  power  and  therefore  the  real 
value  of  money,  offers  the  one  true  guide. 

The  question  then  comes  to  this:  How  are  we  to 
avail  of  this  true  guide?  H  the  government,  taking 
the  issue  of  currency  into  its  own  hands,  strove  to  regu- 
late the  issue  as  interest  rates  rose  or  fell,  it  would 


MONEY  AND   roruLisii.  139 

fall  amiss  of  the  natural  law  we  have  referred  to  above. 
Il  would  find  in  interest  rates  a  false  guide.  Besides, 
we  don't  want  to  see  the  government  playing  the  part 
of  usurer  in  the  issue  of  money.  The  whole  idea  of 
the  government  charging  interest,  usui'y,  for  its  own 
])romises  to  receive,  for  money  it  issues  receivable  for 
taxe^  and  so  redeemable,  for  money  redeemable  in  pos- 
tal services  or  in  services  rendered  by  other  public 
works  that  the  government  may  undertake,  is  repug- 
nant. 

And  if  money  be  redeemable  in  services  of  govern- 
mental works,  and  retired  out  of  net  earnings,  why 
should  it  not  be  issued  in  payment  for  such  works? 
What  more  natural  than  it  should,  in  what  more  nat- 
ural way  can  it  be  issued?  Let  it  be  so  issued  and  re- 
deemed, and  we  would  have  a  perpetual  cycle  of  issue 
and  redemption.  But  how  may  w'e  so  issue  it  as  to 
regard  the  true  guide  that  we  must  follow  to  establish 
an  honest  measure  of  values?  It  has  been  said  by 
some  that  we  have  but  to  hire  on  public  works  at  a 
fixed  rate  all  the  men  who  may  care  to  work.  If  we  did, 
we  would  have  a  unit  of  value  based  on  labor,  we  would 
have  the  rate  of  wages  rather  rigidly  fixed.  For  if 
under  such  a  system  there  came  industrial  depression, 
with  the  resulting  throwing  of  men  out  of  work,  an  in- 
creasing number  of  men  would  seek  work  on  the  public 
works,  as  a  result  the  issue  of  money  would  be  in- 
creased, this  would  make  an  increased  demand  for  pro- 
ducts of  all  kinds,  give  an  upward  impetus  to  prices 
and  this  a  stimulus  to  industrial  activity.  And  then 
would  come  new  demand  for  labor,  a  slight  advance  in 
wages  would  serve  to  draw  men  away  from  the  public^ 
works,  decrease  the  issue  of  money,  prevent  a  further 
rise  in  prices,  cause  a  retrogression  until  the  general 
rate  of  wages  had  fallen  back  to  that  fixed  by  the  gov- 
ernment.    Thus  it  is  very  evident  that  there  would  be 


140  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

uo  great  margin  within  which  wages  could  fall  below 
or  rise  above  the  rate  offered  by  government  to  all  who 
might  apply. 

But  wages  thus  fixed,  a  day's  labor  made  the  unit  of 
value,  what  would  inevitably  follow  with  the  progress 
of  industrial  evolution,  the  introduction  of  improved 
machinery  and  the  consequent  increase  in  the  product 
of  the  day's  labor?  Evidently  the  laborer  could  not 
share  in  such  increased  production  through  an  advance 
in  his  nominal  wages  proportionate  to  the  increase  of 
his  productiveness.  From  the  possibility  of  such  rise 
he  would  be  cut  off.  He  could  only  share  in  the  in- 
creased productiveness  of  his  labor  through  a  fall  in 
prices  and  so  increased  purchasing  power  of  his  wage. 
And  though  there  came  a  fall  in  prices  of  equal  pro- 
portion to  the  increase  in  the  productiveness  of  labor, 
he  would  not  get  his  full  share  of  such  increased  pro- 
ductiveness. He  would  be  cut  off  from  this.  For  with  a 
fall  in  prices,  the  share  of  the  product  taken  by  the 
fund-holding  classes,  by  those  owning  debts  and  draw- 
ing fixed  sums  of  interest,  must  be  increased.  To  a 
share  in  the  increased  productiveness  of  labor  they 
would  not,  of  right,  be  entitled,  but  under  such  a  sys- 
tem as  described  above  they  would  get  a  share.  And 
getting  a  share,  the  share  of  the  producers  would,  of 
necessity,  fall  below  what  it  ought.  Therefore,  in  jus- 
tice, we  must  see  that  an  increase  in  the  productive- 
ness of  labor  will  be  followed  by  an  advance  in  the  rate 
of  wages,  not  by  a  general  fall  in  prices.  For  if  there 
come  such  fall,  the  burdens  resting  on  the  backs  of 
producers  will  not  be  lightened  as  they  increase  the 
productiveness  of  their  labor.  So  what  we  have  to  do 
is  to  so  increase  the  issue  of  money  as  to  keep  the  gen- 
eral level  of  prices  from  falling.  And  this  can  be  done 
how?  By  increasing  the  rate  of  Avages  offered  on  the 
public    works    whenever    the    general   level    of   prices 


MONEY    AND    POPULISM.  141 

shows  a  falling  tendency.  Such  increase  in  wages  of- 
I'ered  would,  of  course,  tend  to  draw  more  men  to  the 
public  works  as  w'ell  as  to  increase  the  weekly  disburse- 
ments, and  so  issue  of  new  money,  to  those  already  em- 
ployed. And  such  increased  issue  of  currency  would 
of  course  make  broadened  demand  for  many  products, 
serve  to  keep  prices  from  falling.  Thus  could  a  stabil- 
ity of  prices  be  maintained,  thus  an  honest  measure  of ; 
values  be  given,  thus  honest  industry  be  encouraged, 
speculation  discouraged.  And  as  the  foundation  step 
to  the  accomplishment  of  this  end  we  have  but  to  learn 
this  simple  rule  so  stamped  with  common-sense,  so  evi- 
dently true,  that  we  may  put  it  down  as  an  axiom  of 
good  government:  That  money  should  be  issued  by  the 
government  not  to  those  who  dig  for  gold,  but  to  those 
who  dig  for  the  government. 


THE  GROWTH  AND  EVILS  OF  TRUSTS. 

[May  13th,  1899.] 

SOME  years  ago  it  became  the  custom  of  those 
leaders  of  industries  who  conceived  the  idea  of 
getting  rid  of  competition  and  enhancing  their 
profits  by  raising  prices  to  constitute  themselves  trus- 
tees, and  as  such  take  over  the  management  and  con- 
trol of  their  separate  plants  and  businesses,  and  also 
the  properties  of  such  smaller  fry  as  could  be  induced 
by  the  hope  of  greater  profit  or  browbeaten  by  the  fear 
of  loss  into  throwing  in  their  lot  with  the  pool.  These 
trustees  then  issued  trust  certificates  in  lieu  of  the 
stock  certificates  of  the  different  corporations  taken 
into  the  trusts  and  handed  into  the  keeping  of  the  trus- 
tees. Thus  as  trustees  they  virtually  held  title  to  all 
the  property  of  the  different  corporations,  and  they 
managed  all  the  properties  as  one,  held  them  all  and 
worked  them  all  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  hold- 
ers of  the  trust  certificates. 

These  trust  certificates  entitled  the  holders  to  a  cer- 
tain percentage  of  the  total  property  held  in  trust.  Of 
course,  all  properties  taken  into  a  trust  were  taken  in 
at  an  appraised  valuation,  and  trust  certificates  issued 
in  accordance  with  the  percentage  that  such  valuation 
bore  to  the  aggregate  valuation  of  the  properties  taken 
in.  Thus  when  the  owner  of  one  property,  or  the 
holder  of  capital  stock  of  one  corporation  gave  it  over 
in  trust  into  the  hands  of  the  trustees  he  received  not 
trust  certificates  certifying  that  such  particular  prop- 
erty was  held  in  trust  for  him,  but  that  a  certain  per- 
centage of  all  the  properties  in  the  hands  of  the  trus- 


THE   GROWTH    AND    EVILS    OF    TRUSTS.  143 

tees  was  so  held  in  trust.  In  short,  instead  of  being 
sole  or  part  owner  in  one  corporation  he  became  part 
owner  in  all  entering  the  trust.  He  put  his  property 
into  one  common  pool,  agreed  to  take  his  proportion- 
ate share  of  the  aggregate  earnings  of  all  the  proper- 
ties, and  in  the  event  of  the  winding  up  of  the  trust 
he  would  get  back  not  his  original  property,  but  a  part 
ownership  in  all  the  properties  going  into  the  trust. 
Interests  thus  pooled,  certain  properties  might  be  alto- 
gether shut  down  at  the  discretion  of  the  trustees,  and 
yet  the  former  owners  of  such  properties  receive  a 
greater  dividend  than  they  ever  earned  from  the  inde- 
pendent operation  of  such  properties.  If  the  shutting 
down  of  such  properties  and  the  consequent  restric- 
tion of  supply  so  raised  prices  that  the  profits  made  at 
those  plants  operated  exceeded  the  aggregate  profits 
of  all  plants  when  in  operation  independently,  selling 
at  lower  prices  and  running  on  a  smaller  margin  of 
profit,  this  Avas  indeed  inevitable. 

And  it  was  to  bring  about  just  this  that  the  earlier 
trusts  were  formed.  By  shutting  down  some  plants 
and  restricting  production  they  sought  at  one  and  the 
same  time  to  enlarge  profits  by  pressing  down  wages, 
by  narrowing  the  demand  for  labor  and  so  increasing 
the  competition  among  laborers  for  work,  and,  second- 
ly, by  raising  prices  by  so  restricting  the  supply  as  to 
make  competition  among  buyers  more  active. 

As  the  crop  of  trusts  so  operating  increased,  they 
naturally  incurred  more  and  more  the  enmity  of  the 
public.  This  naturally  led  to  efforts  at  repressive  leg- 
islation, trusts  were  almost  universally  declared  to  be 
illegal,  proceedings  were  brought  in  many  states  to 
force  their  dissolution. 

This  led  to  the  trusts  changing  their  form.  Under 
the  laws  of  some  state  they  incorporated,  started  forth 
on  a  continuance  of  their  career  and  with  the  same 


144  THE   GREAT    ISSUES. 

purposes.  Thoy  only  changed  in  outward  form  and 
legal  name.  The  popular  name  of  trusts  still  clung  to 
them,  and  still  clings  to  all  corporations  organized  to 
effect  a  combination  of  industrial  plants  previously  in- 
dependent and  with  a  view  to  getting  rid  of  competi- 
tion. Thus  for  some  time  it  was  sought  to  get  around 
the  various  anti-trust  laws,  but  this  fiction  the  Illinois 
Supreme  Court  exploded  when  in  its  decision  in  the 
case  of  the  former  Whiskey  Trust  that  sought  to  avoid 
the  penalties  of  the  law  by  incorporation  it  declared: 
"  There  is  no  magic  in  the  corporate  organization 
which  can  purge  the  trust  scheme  of  its  illegality,  and 
it  remains  as  essentially  opposed  to  the  principles  of 
sound  public  policy  as  when  the  Trust  was  in  exist- 
ence. It  was  illegal  before  (incorporation),  and  is 
illegal  still  and  for  the  same  reasons."  And  it  is  only 
within  a  few  days  that  the  Missouri  Supreme  Court 
took  similar  ground  in  holding  the  anti-trust  law  of 
that  State  was  applicable  to  the  company,  popularly 
known  as  the  Lead  Trust. 

Indeed,  under  the  common  law  all  the  great  indus- 
trial trusts  could  properly  be  declared  illegal  as  com- 
binations in  restraint  of  trade  and  working  injury  to 
the  general  public.  But  none  the  less  the  making  of 
such  trusts  under  corporate  title  goes  on  at  an  aston- 
ishing and  never  before  equalled  rate,  the  corporate 
lawyers  defending  them  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
not  organized  with  a  view  to  the  restraint  of  trade, 
with  a  view  to  getting  rid  of  competition  and  enhanc- 
ing profits  by  raising  prices,  but  with  the  expectation 
of  enlarging  profits  through  economizing  the  costs  of 
l)roduction  in  a  way  only  possible  in  a  great  combina- 
tion, where  production  and  distribution  is  on  such  a 
gigantic  scale  that  the  industry  can  be  systematized  in 
every  branch,  everything  be  laid  out  by  clockwork 
r'nwn  to  the  smallest  minutiae  and  division,  and  hence 


THE    GKOWTH    AND    EVILS    OF    TKUSTS.  145 

.-aving  of  labor  be  carried  to  a  degree  quite  impossible 
of  attainment  in  the  ordinary  establishment. 

So  it  is  argued  that  these  great  modern  day  trusts 
do  not  work  injury  but  advantage  to  the  general  pub- 
lic, their  increased  profits  being  not  the  result  of  tri- 
bute squeezed  from  the  public  in  the  shape  of  en- 
lianced  prices,  but  the  result  of  savings  in  production. 
And  there  is  just  enough  truth  in  this  contention  to 
give  it  plausibility.  But  the  cold  facts  show  that  many 
of  the  recently  formed  combinations,  as  many  of  their 
older  forerunners,  have  raised  prices  very  materially 
to  the  consumer  and  without  according  an  advance  of 
wages  commensurate  with  such  rise.  The  New  York 
''  Tribune "  cites  many  examples,  finding  fault  with 
those  producers  who  are  protected  by  high  tariff  duties 
from  foreign  competition,  and  who  have  combined  to 
stifle  home  competition  and  shove  up  prices  on  the 
consumer.  It  sees  very  clearly  that  such  action,  such 
use  of  the  protective  duties  to  exact  tribute  from  con- 
sumers endangers  the  whole  protective  system.  That 
system  is  aimed  to  foster  domestic  competition,  free 
our  consumers  from  dependence  on  foreign  producers, 
and  the  effect  of  such  stimulus  given  to  home  industry 
and  the  resulting  competition  has  been  generally  to 
liring  down  prices. 

A  recent  striking  illustration  of  this  has  been  in  the 
tin  plate  industry.  Nine  years  ago  we  produced  no  tin 
plate,  bought  all  we  used.  The  Welsh  tin  plate  manu- 
facturers had  a  monopoly  of  supplying  our  markets, 
and  they  made  the  most  of  it.  Then  the  McKinley 
tariff  was  passed  putting  a  high  duty  on  tin  plate.  The 
Wilson  bill  did  not  take  it  off  in  entirety,  only  cut  down 
the  rate.  The  first  effect  of  this  protective  tariff  duly 
was  the  raising  of  the  price  of  tin  plate.  Then  fol- 
lowed wonderful  development  of  the  industry  in  Amer- 
ica, competition  was  free,  production  was  much  cheap- 


146  THE   GREAT    ISSUES. 

encd,  soon  the  American  consumer  was  getting  tin 
plate  for  a  much  smaller  price  than  he  had  ever  been 
able  to  get  it  for  before.  By  the  development  of  the 
industry  at  home  he  was  freed  from  dependence  on  the 
foreign  producer,  the  tariff  on  tin  plate  proved  pro- 
tective of  the  interests  of  the  American  consumer  as 
well  as  of  the  producer. 

But  now  comes  a  change.  An  American  tin  plate 
trust  is  formed;  it  puts  an  end  to  competition,  and  be- 
hind the  shelter  of  the  Dingley  tariff  it  puts  up  prices. 
Other  producers  of  iron  and  steel  products  have  done 
much  the  same.  .The  copper  combine  has  come  in  for 
much  criticism  on  a  similar  score.  But  says  the  "  Tri- 
bune," referring  to  an  observation  of  the  "  Iron  Age  " 
that  producers  of  iron  and  steel  are  not  altogether 
without  blame  in  this  respect: 

"  It  would  seem  not.  For  instance,  wire  nails  are 
quoted  at  $3.10,  against  $1.25  last  December,  an  ad- 
vance of  68  per  cent.,  which  is  considerably  more  than 
the  rise  in  copper.  The  public  castigation  of  the  milder 
sinner  is  not  readily  explained.  Cut  nails  have  ad- 
vanced since  January  1st  about  63  per  cent.  Bar  iron 
at  Pittsburg  has  advanced  about  58  per  cent.  Tank 
steel  plates  at  Philadelphia  have  advanced  about  76 
per  cent.  In  some  respects  the  worst  sinner  of  all  is 
the  tin  plate  combination,  which  has  advanced  prices 
from  $2.25  for  hundred  pound  boxes  to  $4.05,  or  59  per 
cent.,  because  the  industry  owes  its  very  existence  to 
the  help  given  it  by  duties  on  imports,  and  sets  up  the 
foreign  price  of  tin  as  an  excuse,  though  the  tin  makes 
but  a  small  fraction  of  the  cost,  and  has  risen  since 
December  1st  only  40  per  cent." 

It  may  be  added  that  the  iron  upon  which  the  tin  is 
plated  has  also  advanced  considerably  in  price,  but 
probably  the  rise  in  the  price  of  materials  entering  into 
production  of  tin  plate  does  not  all  told  make  up  one- 


THE    GROWTH    AND    EVILS    OF    TRUSTS.  117 

third  of  the  advance  in  the  price  of  the  finished  pro- 
duct. And  also  in  fairness  it  must  be  said  that  wages 
have  been  advanced  ten  per  cent.,  though  this,  al- 
though offered  as  such  by  the  trust,  can  scarcely  be 
accepted  as  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  rise  in  tin 
plate,  after  allowance  is  made  for  the  increased  cost  of 
raw  products,  of  more  than  thirty  per  cent.  In  short, 
the  tin  plate  combine  has  taken  advantage  of  its 
monopoly  to  enhance  its  profits  by  forcing  up  prices 
under  the  shelter  of  the  tariff. 

Thus  is  it  using  the  tariff  imposed  to  foster  domestic 
competition,  imposed  to  benefit  the  American  con- 
sumer, to  levy  tribute  upon  him.  And  this  causes  the 
"  Tribune,"  ever  with  a  care  for  the  protective  tariff', 
to  cry  out  warningly  to  all  such  combines:  "It  is  not 
exactly  the  right  time  to  be  milking  the  country  to 
the  last  drop  in  order  to  realize  quick  and  big  profits 
for  works  largely  established  by  aid  of  its  laws."  If 
you  do  you  will  run  the  risk  of  upsetting  all  your  apple 
carts,  for  "  there  is  coming  a  time  when  such  advances 
in  price  will  be  publicly  discussed  as  evidence  that  the. 
national  policy  of  protection  has  placed  consumers  at 
the  mercy  of  all  sorts  of  combinations  Avhich  show  no 
sense  of  regard  for  the  puljlic  welfare."  It  might  have 
added,  if  you  must  milk  the  country  to  the  last  drop, do 
not  leave  the  milking  for  the  very  year  before  a  presi- 
dential election,  commence  earlier  in  the  term,  stop  the 
milking  process  before  the  ball  of  a  presidential  cam- 
paign is  set  rolling,  give  the  people  time  to  forget. 

If  the  Republicans  had  adopted  the  Pettigrew  amend- 
ment to  the  Dingloy  tarill'  making  provision  for  the 
transfer  to  the  free  list  of  all  articles  the  home  produc- 
tion of  which  should  become  monopolized  by  trusts  or 
combines,  they  would  have  been  saved  the  necessity  of 
making  difficult  explanations;  if  they  would  save  the 
protective  tariff  they  must  themselves  take  the  initia- 


148  TlIK    GREAT    ISSUES. 

live  in  proposing  an  amendment  having  the  effect  of 
the  Pettigrew  anti-trust  amendment  and  so  disarm 
their  opponents. 

It  may  he  suggested  that  a  raising  of  prices  by  a  trust 
or  combine  and  with  the  result  of  swelling  profits  must 
naturally  increase  profits  for  those  outside,  thus  en- 
courage men  to  embark  in  production  independently  of 
such  trust,  thus  lead  to  more  competition,  and  so  an 
enhancement  of  prices  engineered  by  a  trust  carry  with 
it  its  own  check.  For  if  the  trust  does  not  hold  itself 
in  check,  if  it  does  undertake  to  swell  its  profits  by 
raising  prices,  such  competition  will  spring  up  as  must 
cause  it  to  collapse.  And  if  there  was  an  open  field 
and  fair  chance  for  all,  special  favors  for  none,  this 
would  happen.  It  would  then  indeed  be  abuse  by  a 
trust  of  its  monopoly,  increased  profits  for  those  out- 
side, then  more  competition,  then  collapse  of  the  trust, 
and  the  trust  evil  would  cure  itself. 

But  there  is  not  this  open  field.  To  hold  a  monop- 
oly used  to  exact  tribute  from  the  public  in  the  shape 
of  enhanced  prices,  enhanced  prices  that  mean  in- 
creased profits  to  tYfose  outside  of  the  trust,  and  there- 
fore increased  competition,  those  increased  profits 
must  be  destroyed.  The  trust  may  destroy  them  at  a 
loss  to  itself  by  underselling,  hoping  to  recoup  itself 
when  it  has  squeezed  its  competitors  to  the  wall,  driven 
them  out  of  business,  regained  a  monopoly  by  raising 
prices.  But  this  is  costly  and  uncertain,  and  our  trusts 
have  found  a  much  better  way.  They  find  the  railroads 
to  be  an  effective  instrument  for  destroying  the  profits 
of  competitors.  By  judicious  regulation  of  freight 
tariffs  the  railroads  can  sweep  such  profits  away,  sweep 
away  the  profits  of  anyone  whose  business  is  dependent 
on  railroad  transportation,  and  at  the  same  time  by  a 
system  of  freight  rebates,  leave  large  profits  to  those 
whom  they  see  fit  to  favor.     And  this  far-reaching  in- 


THE    GKOWTH   AND    EVILS    OF    TRUSTS.  119 

strument  the  trusts  have  availed  of,  the  successful  ones 
have  made  it  to  the  interest  of  railroad  managers  to 
favor  them  with  these  rebates. 

Before  the  growth  of  trusts  can  be  stopped,  before 
the  evil  of  trusts  can  be  done  away  with  this  instru- 
ment with  which  they  have  ensconced  themselves  in 
power  must  be  put  beyond  their  reach.  The  party  that 
has  not  the  courage  to  do  this  or  is  unwilling  is  the 
friend  of  the  trusts;  both  Eepubliean  and  Democratic 
parties  have  been  tried  and  found  wanting;  the  Peo- 
ple's party  approaches  the  question  directly,  proposes 
to  remove  this  instrument  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
trusts  by  nationalizing  our  railroads,  it  alone  is  the 
enemy  of  trusts. 


Fifty-fifth  Congress,  First  Session. 

AMENDMENT  PREPARED  BY  WHARTON 

BARKER  AND  OFFERED  AT  HIS 

REQUEST  BY  SENATOR 

PETTIGREW. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

May  12th,  1897. 

Ordered  to  be  Printed. 

AMENDMENT 

intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Pettigrew  to  the  bill 
(H.  R.  379)  to  provide  revenue  for  the  Government, 
and  to  encourage  the  industries  of  the  United  States, 
viz.,  insert  the  following: 

That  any  or  all  articles  on  the  dutiable  list  men- 
tioned in  this  Act  shall  be  admitted  free  of  duty  on 
submission  of  proof  that  one-half  or  more  of  the  do- 
mestic production  of  any  article  or  articles  on  the  im- 
portation of  which  a  tariff  duty  is  levied  is  controlled 
or  in  any  way  regulated  by  a  trust  or  combination  of 
any  kind,  corporate  or  other,  organized  to  control  do- 
mestic production  or  to  repress  competition. 

Any  citizen  of  the  United  States  may  file  a  petition, 
verified  by  oath  or  affirmation,  in  any  district  court  of 
the  United  States  where  the  defendant  has  an  ofiice 
or  place  of  business,  or  may  reside,  alleging  the  exist- 
ence of  a  trust  or  combination  organized  to  control 
domestic  production  or  to  repress  competition,  and 
that  articles  or  products  subject  to  duty  under  this 
Act  or  articles  or  products  of  like  character  of  domes- 
tic production  are  manufactured  or  their  sale  con- 
trolled or  the  price  affected  by  said  trust;  whereupon  a 


AMENDMENT    OFFERED    TO    CONGRESS.  151 

summons  shall  be  immediately  issued  from  said  court 
directing  the  defendant  to  appear  and  answer  said  peti- 
tion, the  case  to  be  governed  as  to  time  and  manner  of 
service,  the  pleadings  and  all  proceedings  had  therein 
as  is  now  provided  by  law  in  civil  causes  instituted  in 
the  district  courts  of  the  United  States. 

If  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  shall  file  with 
any  district  attorney  for  said  district  the  petition  here- 
in set  forth  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  attorney  to  in- 
stitute proceedings  forthwith  in  the  district  court  for 
said  district  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  for  the; 
purpose  of  determining  the  issues  made  by  said  peti- 
tion, like  proceedings  to  be  had  in  such  case  as  herein- 
before prescribed. 

The  summons  to  the  defendant  or  defendants  herein 
required  shall  be  served  upon  the  president,  or  chief 
oificer,  if  a  corporation,  or  upon  all  the  members,  if  an 
association  or  partnership,  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  shall  also  be  notified  of  the  existence  and  na- 
ture of  the  suit. 

All  cases  instituted  as  herein  provided  shall  be  ad- 
vanced upon  the  docket  of  the  court  so  as  to  have  pre- 
cedence of  trial  over  all  civil  causes  thereon. 

If  the  decision  of  the  court  shall  be  that  the  allega- 
tions of  the  petition  are  true,  an  order  directing  the 
customs  officers  of  the  United  States  to  thereafter  per- 
mit the  importation  of  such  article  or  articles  free  of 
duty  shall  at  once  issue;  Provided,  That  where  a  duty 
is  levied  upon  raw  material  or  any  article  that  is  im- 
proved by  any  process  after  being  imported  the  duty 
on  the  raw  material  or  unrefined  or  unimproved  article 
shall  be  collected  and  a  like  amount  of  duty  upon  the 
refined  or  improved  article  as  provided  by  this  Act;  but 
the  differential  or  additional  duty  shall  not  be  collected 
if  the  improved  or  refined  product  is  found  to  be  the 
subject  of  a  trust,  as  hereinbefore  set  forth. 


MAMMON  IN  THE  PULPIT,  CHRISTIANITY 
OUTCAST. 

[September  26th,  1897.] 

CHRIST  protected  the  weak  and  lowly,  he 
scourged  the  rich — rich  because  they  had  been 
and  were  the  despoilers  of  mankind.  He  ex- 
tended help  and  sympathy  to  the  poor;  he  strove  to 
uplift  the  downtrodden;  he  honored  the  rich  who  gath- 
ered riches  by  industry,  whose  riches  represented  earn- 
ings; but  those  who  gathered  riches  by  preying  upon 
others,  whose  riches  represented  not  the  earnings  of 
industry,  but  stealings,  he  would  not  condone.  He  des- 
pised no  man  because  he  was  poor;  he  honored  no  man 
because  he  was  rich;  he  honored  the  man  who  loved  his 
fellow-men,  who  sought  to  live  by  honesty  and  indus- 
try; he  despised  the  man  who  regarded  his  fellow-men 
not  as  brothers,  but  as  slaves;  who  regarded  them  only 
as  they  might  be  made  the  hewers  of  wood  and  draw- 
ers of  water;  who  sought  to  live  by  preying  upon  the 
poor. 

Can  the  same  be  said  of  those  who  stand  forth  as  his 
disciples  in  the  pulpits  of  to-day?  Can  every  clergy- 
man ask  himself:  "  Do  I  despise  no  man  because  he  is 
poor  ?  "  and  honestly  answer,  "  I  do  not  ";  ask  himself, 
"  Do  I  honor  no  man  because  he  is  rich  ?  "  and  truly 
answer,  "  No  "  ?  There  are  many  men  in  our  churches 
of  that  noble  stamp  who  would  sacrifice  all  for  their 
convictions,  of  the  stamp  who  suffered  death  at  the 
stake  rather  than  teach  falsehoods,  for  whom  life  pur- 
chased at  the  cost  of  dishonor  had  no  charms,  men  who 
would  rather  fly  in  the  face  of  riches,  put  proffered 
riches  and  rewards  and  bodily  comforts  to  one  side 


MAMMON   IN   THE   PULPIT.  153 

than  purchase  such  riches  by  a  worship  of  Mammon,  by 
catering  to  the  desires  of  the  rich,  by  excusing  their 
excesses,  their  crimes  against  society.  But  how  many 
are  there  who  are  willing  to  purchase  riches  by  preach- 
ing what  the  rich  are  pleased  to  hear,  by  condoning  the 
sins  of  the  rich  against  mankind,  by  teaching  that  to 
live  by  preying  upon  the  fruits  of  others'  toil  is  no 
crime  under  the  laws  of  Christianity,  by  calling  upon 
the  poor  to  submit  contentedly  as  they  may,  but,  above 
all,  peacefully,  to  such  despoilment! 

How  many,  we  ask,  are  the  men  who  have  purchased 
places  in  our  churches,  purchased  salaries  and  the  bod- 
ily comforts  that  riches  bring,  by  teaching  the  lessons 
and  precepts  of  Christ,  not  as  he  taught  them,  but  as 
the  rich,  who  disobey  those  precepts,  would  have  them 
taught,  who  have  purchased  their  places  not  only  by 
foregoing  to  scourge  from  the  pulpit  tliose  who  gather 
riches  by  preying  upon  others,  but  by  aiding  the  rich 
in  this  despoilment,  this  aggrandizing  of  their  riches, 
by  teaching  the  downtrodden  that  they  have  no  cause 
for  complaint,  even  though  they  be  ground  down  to 
poverty,  that  there  is  nothing  un-Christian  in  this  up- 
building of  the  riches  of  the  few  upon  the  poverty  of 
the  m.any?  Such  men  are  many,  and  such  are  the  men 
who  are  driving  away  from  the  church  the  masses  of 
the  people,  driving  away  the  poor  and  downtrodden 
who  have  a  right  to  look  to  the  Christian  churches  for 
protection,  who  have  a  right  to  call  upon  the  churches 
for  aid  and  comfort  in  the  struggle  with  those  who 
build  riches  on  their  impoverishment,  who  have  a  right 
to  look  to  the  churches  to  scourge  those  who  rob  them 
of  the  fruits  of  their  toil,  but  Avho  look  only  to  find 
the  churches  protecting  the  rich  despoilers  and  scourg- 
ing the  poor  and  downtrodden  who  protest  against  des- 
poilment. Thus  the  masses  are  driven  away  from  the 
almrches  because  they  are  not  wanted,  ])ecause  they  are 


154  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

not  welcomed,  because  they  get  in  the  churches  no 
!>ympathy,  though  deserving  of  it,  no  assistance  for 
their  uplifting  to  a  higher  plane  of  life,  though  en- 
titled to  it,  but  are  called  upon  to  listen  to  laudations 
of  those  who  grind  them  down. 

While  occupiers  of  the  pulpits  of  our  churches  ad- 
dress themselves  to  the  god  of  cupidity,  of  selfishness^ 
of  Mammon,  not  the  God  of  love,  of  charity,  of  Chris- 
tianity, men  will  continue  to  be  repelled  from  our 
churches.  We  may  build  and  consecrate  churches  to 
the  worship  of  Christianity,  but  if  the  doctrines  and 
precepts  of  Christ  are  slurred  and  outcast  therein  and 
Mammonism  enthroned,  we  cannot  look  for  those  who 
strive  to  live  up  to  the  precepts  and  teachings  of  Christ 
— who  believe  it  is  their  duty  to  love  and  help  their 
fellow-men  to  rise,  not  each  man's  right  to  use  his  fel- 
low-men as  stepping  stones  for  his  own  enrichment  and 
advancement,  if  he  can — to  worship  within  those  doors. 
Those  who  transgress  the  laws  of  Christianity,  and  are 
content  to  cover  those  aggressions  behind  the  outward 
forms  of  Christianity  may  build  and  may  frequent  such 
churches,  but  to  do  so  will  not  beget  them  forgiveness 
for  their  sins  in  the  eyes  of  a  just  God  or  of  Christian 
men,  for  the  cloak  of  hypocrisy  can  never  make  an  act 
that  is  a  sin  righteous,  never  make  wrong  right,  but 
quite  the  contrary,  must  multiply  the  sinfulness  of 
the  transgression. 

To  laud  men  who  have  grown  rich  by  despoiling 
other  men  and  who  deserve  to  be  scourged  for  the  suf- 
fering and  distress  they  have  brought  to  their  fellow- 
men  is  not  Christian.  Yet  many  are  the  churches 
wherein  the  rich  are  lauded,  not  because  they  have 
done  service  to  their  fellow-men,  not  because  they  have 
striven  to  uplift  mankind,  not  because  they  have  obeyed 
the  Christian  precept  to  treat  all  men  as  brothers,  but 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  have  gathered  riches  by 


MAMMON    IN    THE   PULPIT.  155 

grinding  down  to  poverty  their  fellow-men,  by  pushing 
them  down  rather  than  uplifting  them — lauded  simply 
because  of  the  possession  of  riches.  Wherever  the 
dishonestly  rich  have  gathered — that  is,  rich  not  from 
earnings  of  industry  but  from  stealings,  and  there  is  a 
sharp  distinction  between  the  two — there  do  we  find 
such  churches.  We  find  such  churches  not  only  there, 
but  wherever  the  rich  may  pay  for  them.  Thus  it  is 
that  religion  is  reduced  to  a  question  of  dollars  and 
cents,  thus  it  is  that  the  worship  of  Mammon  takes  the 
place  of  Christianity  in  many  of  our  churches. 

It  is  not  the  part  of  a  church  founded  on  the  pre- 
cepts of  Christ,  founded  on  the  equality  of  man, 
founded  on  the  great  truth  that  the  worthiness  of  men 
rests  not  on  riches,  but  on  their  good  works,  that  no 
man  loses  his  rights  because  of  poverty,  that  riches  con- 
fer upon  the  possessor  no  right  to  oppress  the  poor,  but 
multiply  the  responsibilities  and  bounden  duty  of  such 
man  to  uplift  his  fellow-men — it  is  not  the  part  of  such 
a  church  to  give  aid  to  those  who  seek  to  build  up 
riches  by  the  enslavement  of  mankind.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  its  part  to  scourge  those  who  thus  banish 
from  mind  the  precepts  of  Christ,  it  is  its  part  to  use 
its  force  for  the  emancipation  of  mankind  from  such 
enslavement. 

Pulpits  of  Christian  churches  should  not  thunder 
laudations  but  maledictions  upon  the  heads  of  those 
who  seek  to  make  slaves  of  their  fellow-men,  upon  the 
heads  of  those  who  scorn  to  gather  riches  by  honest 
toil  and  industry,  and  pride  themselves  on  their  success 
in  gathering  great  fortunes  by  robbing  their  fellow- 
mon.  Laudations  should  be  reserved  for  those  who 
struggle  to  emancipate  their  fellow-men  from  the 
slavery  of  grinding  poverty,  they  should  be  withheld 
from  thos«  w^ho  aim  to  bring  about  this  slavery  and  are 
content  to  revel  in  enjoyments  purchased  at  the  cost 


156  THE   GREAT    ISSUES. 

of  widespread  suffering  and  distress.  But  in  the  case 
of  too  many  of  our  individual  churches  it  is  not  so.  We 
find  these  churches  praising  those  who  have  gathered 
riches  by  i)reying  upon  the  toil  of  others,  catering  to 
the  wishes  and  pleasure  of  the  rich  while  passing  by 
the  poor,  that  they,  the  churches,  have  aided  to  grind 
down  to  poverty  by  teaching  Christianity,  not  as  it  is, 
not  as  Christ  had  it,  but  as  the  rich,  whose  riches  have 
been  built  upon  the  enslavement  of  their  fellow-men, 
would  have  it. 

So  we  have  those  who  are  bending  all  their  energies 
to  profiting  from  an  enslavement  of  mankind,  forbid- 
den by  Christianity,  directing  the  teaching  in  many  of 
our  foremost  churches.  Needless  to  say,  that  which  is 
directed  to  be  taught  is  not  Christianity  but  a  worship 
of  Mammon,  and  equally  needless  to  say,  it  is  taught  by 
men  who  care  less  for  the  precepts  of  Christ  than  for 
worldly  goods.  No  other  men  could  keep  their  phices, 
true  teachers  of  Christianity  would  not  be  tolerated  in 
such  pulpits. 

Men  there  are  in  the  church  who  court  dismissal 
from  lucrative  positions  by  teaching  the  precepts  of 
Christ,  by  standing  by  the  poor  and  downtrodden  and 
scourging  those  who  make  it  a  business  to  trample 
upon  their  fellow-men,  but  in  the  rich  churches  they 
are  of  necessity  few.  It  was  true  in  the  days  of  chattel 
slavery,  when  those  who  profited  from  property  in 
human  flesh  endowed  the  churches  and  contributed 
most  liberally  to  their  support;  it  is  true  in  these 
days  of  industrial  slavery,  when  those  who  profit 
from  grinding  their  fellow-men  down  to  the  slavery  of 
poverty,  take  the  place  of  the  old  owners  of  chattel 
slaves.  Whatever  policies  are  urged  by  those  who  are 
enriching  themselves  by  preying  upon  the  industrial 
classes,  whatever  policies  the  men  who  seek  enrichment 
in   this   way    may   put   forward    to  aid  them  in  their 


MAMMON    IN    THE    PULPIT.  157 

further  plans  of  aggrandizing  themselves  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  many,  find  a  ready  echo,  a  ready  approval, 
in  the  pulpits  of  our  churches  consecrated  to  the  wor- 
ship of  Christianity. 

Why  this  should  be  so  is  perhaps  a  needless  question. 
Our  churches,  a  great  many  and  the  most  pretentious 
of  them,  are  built  by  these  who  have  gathered  riches 
by  enslaving  mankind,  the  ministers  in  these  churches 
have  to  look  to  such  men  for  their  salaries,  and  to  keep 
their  places  and  their  salaries  they  cannot  displease 
those  who  pay  them.  So  they  preach  to  the  rich  pews, 
they  teach  not  only  that  it  is  right  and  godly  to  grow 
rich  by  grinding  one's  fellow-men  down  to  poverty,  but 
that  Christ  so  taught;  they  profess  to  see  no  wrong, 
only  righteousness,  in  robbing  the  industrial  classes  if 
that  robbing  can  l)e  done  successfully  and  under  the 
cloak  of  law;  they  never  feel  called  upon  to  scourge  the 
ricli  for  such  robbery.  Thus  the  rich  hear  what  they 
want  to  hear,  hear  that  they  have  lived  up  to  the  pre- 
cepts of  Christianity  though  they  have  transgressed  the 
great  precept  of  Christianity  by  enslaving  men  they 
are  told  to  regard  as  their  brothers,  though  they  have 
trampled  upon  and  oppressed  men  who  have  rights  as 
sacred  as  their  own.  They  hear  falsehood  not  the 
truth,  they  listen  to  hypocrisy,  but  hypocrisy  they  pay 
for  and  hypocrisy  is  what  they  get. 

But  to  expect  other  men  to  share  in  this  hypocrisy, 
especially  men  who  are  the  victims  of  it,  is  not  reasona- 
ble. Those  who  have  grown  rich  by  preying  upon  others 
may  banish  Christianity  and  enthrone  Mammonism  in 
their  churches,  but  they  cannot  force  Christian  men 
to  respect  the  teachings  of  churches  consecrated  to  the 
worship  of  Christianity,  but  desecrated  by  the  worship 
of  Mammon.  ]\Iany  men  may  be  led  to  follow  them 
by  the  cloak  of  hypocrisy  that  they  throw  over  thoir 
worship  of  Mammon,  but  for  the  multitude,  the  great 


158  THH    (JUEAT    ISSUES. 

masses  of  our  ])coplc,  such  churches  must  gradually 
lose  their  attractiveness,  their  teachings  must  lose  their 
hold.  Because  the  pulpits  in  many  of  our  churches 
are  subsidized  to  do  the  bidding  of  the  slave  drivers  of 
to-day  and  teach  that  industrial  slavery  is  righteous, 
does  not  make  that  slavery  righteous,  all  their  teaching 
cannot  make  a  slavery  Christian  that  Christ  taught  to 
be  sinful  and  un-Christian,  all  the  subterfuge  and 
sophistry  that  they  can  muster  can  no  more  make  the 
industrial  slavery  of  to-day  righteous,  no  more  bring  it 
into  accord  with  the  teachings  of  Christianity  than 
could  sophistry  make  righteous  and  Christian  the 
chattel  slavery  of  old. 

We  have  reached  the  day  in  which  every  political 
question  is  a  social  question,  and  every  social  question 
a  religious  question,  and  for  the  Church  to  side  on  all 
political  questions  at  the  dictation  of  the  god  of  riches 
will  not  do.  It  wnll  no  more  do  than  it  would  do  be- 
fore the  War  when  the  great  political  question  became 
jirimarily  a  social  and  religious  question,  and  it  cannot 
be.  Those  who  fill  the  pulpits  of  our  churches  must 
side  as  the  precepts  of  Christ  direct,  they  must  take 
the  side  of  freedom  and  equality;  they  must  teach  the 
rule  "  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself; "  they 
must  take  sides  on  the  political  issues  put  forward  by 
those  who  are  grinding  down  to  poverty  our  industrial 
classes,  and  those  sides  must  be  taken,  not  at  the  dicta- 
tion of  the  moneyed  oligarchy  built  up  by  grinding  oth- 
ers down  to  the  poverty  of  slavery,  but  at  the  dictation 
of  conscience;  must  be  taken  on  the  teachings  of  Chris- 
tianity not  the  dictation  of  ^lammon,  or  there  will  be 
a  serious  reckoning  to  the  loss  of  church  and  clergy 
alike.  In  short.  Church  and  clergy,  if  they  are  truly 
Christian,  must  stand  against  policies  directed  for  the 
enslavement  of  mankind,  they  must  stand  for  the 
emancipation  of  our  industrial  classes  from  the  bur- 


MAMMON    IX    THE    PULPIT.  I."i9 

dens  that  grind  such  classes  down  to  poverty  and 
through  poverty  to  virtual  slavery. 

Yet  that  Church  and  clergy  cling  to  the  worship  of 
Mammon  is,  as  we  have  said,  not  surprising.  To  teach 
the  precepts  of  Christianity  requires  self-sacrifice  as  of 
old  and  sacrifice  demands  a  courage  that  is  too  often 
lacking.  But  the  time  must  come  when  the  demands 
for  the  Church  to  advance  and  clear  itself  of  the  taint 
of  Mammonism  cannot  he  stifled  by  hypocritical  teach- 
ings and  then  those  of  the  clergy  who  fail  to  go  for- 
ward, fail  to  purge  themselves  of  Mammonism,  will  be 
left  by  the  roadside.  It  is  unfortunately  true  that 
many  preachers  of  the  gospel,  perhaps  the  majority, 
are  slaves  to  ^lammon,  but  of  all  it  is  not  true.  As 
we  said,  there  are  men  in  our  churches  to-day  of  that 
noble  stamp  who  are  ready  to  sacrifice  self  for  their 
religion,  sacrifice  worldly  place  and  goods  for  their  fel- 
low-men, and  speak  from  the  pulpit  about  the  rich, 
scourge  them  for  their  stealings,  for  their  efforts  to  en- 
slave mankind,  come  what  may  of  it.  Men  of  this 
stamp,  we  do  find,  though  all  too  seldom  in  metropoli- 
tan pulpits. 

Bitter  it  is,  indeed,  when  to  be  respectable,  fash- 
ionable in  the  pulpit  one  must  put  worldly  goods  and 
comforts  before  beliefs,  must  shape  Christianity  in  the 
image  of  those  who  mock  it,  must  shape  it  in  the  image 
of  those  who  disdain  to  follow  the  precepts  of  Christ, 
who  put  the  possession  of  wealth  above  all  else,  deem 
it  a  triumph  and  honor  to  gain  riches,  however  dishon- 
orably gained,  but  who  have  the  money  to  pay  for  its 
teaching  so  as  to  hold  them  innocent  of  all  transgres- 
sion. Yet  to  hold  tlie  fashionable  pulpit  one  must  be 
all  this,  must  teach  that  it  is  right  for  man  to  enslave 
his  fellow,  that  men  have  not  equal  rights,  that  those 
who  have  might  may  trample  upon  and  oppress  those 
who  have  not,  that  to  build  uj)  riches  by  despoiling  the 
weak  and  poor  is  no  sin,  but  for  the  despoiled  to  raise 


160  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

a  protest  is  anarchy,  the  gravest  of  sins.  Thus  we  have 
preachers  of  the  Gospel  acting  as  if  the  first  precept  of 
Christianity  was  to  gather  wealth;  that  to  grind  down 
the  many  to  poverty  in  fulfillment  of  this  precept  is  not 
reprehensible,  but  most  commendable. 

So  we  have  strikes  of  the  oppressed  and  downtrodden 
condemned — condemned  by  men  who  have  chosen  to 
propound  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  by  men  who  feel 
called  upon  to  laud  the  greatest  of  strikes  and  the 
greatest  of  strike  leaders,  for  his  name  and  acts  are  re- 
corded in  that  book.  But  to  these  propounders  of  the 
Bible,  Moses  and  the  strike  of  the  Hebrews  from  Egyp- 
tian bondage  carries  no  lesson.  The  Hebrews,  friend- 
less and  downtrodden,  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of 
water  for  the  Egyptians,  preyed  upon  that  their  task- 
masters might  be  enriched,  cried  out  for  deliverance, 
and  Moses  came  as  their  deliverer,  as  the  greatest  strike 
organizer  in  history,  and  led  them  from  oppression. 
But  what  is  lauded  in  the  Hebrews  who  threw  off 
Egyptian  bondage,  who  struck  against  oppression,  is 
condemned  in  the  oppressed  of  to-day.  For  the  op- 
pressed of  to-day,  the  worshipers  of  Mammon  in  our 
churches,  yet  the  professed  propounders  of  the  Gospel, 
have  but  one  kind  of  advice — "  bear  your  oppression 
that  your  oppressors  who  give  to  the  churches  and  keep 
us  in  ease  and  comfort  may  be  enriched." 

So  are  the  churches  made  repugnant  to  the  poor  and 
the  oppressed.  Fashionable  society,  fond  of  the  display 
of  wealth,  scorns  to  worship  with  the  poor,  repulses 
them  from  the  church  door  by  the  cold  sneer  of  as- 
sumed superiority,  of  superiority  in  the  Christian 
Church,  in  the  presence  of  God,  where  at  least  no  man 
is  superior  to  his  fellow-man  save  it  be  in  godly  acts, 
where,  if  any  one  should  feel  humility,  inferiority  in 
presence  of  his  fellow-men,  it  should  be  he  who  has  a^r- 
grandized  himself  by  despoiling  others,  v.'ho  has  sought 
to  uplift  himself  by  pushing  others  down.     And  re- 


MAMMOX   IN   THE   PULPIT.  161 

pulsed  at  the  church  door  by  the  scorn  of  society,  so 
are  the  poor  repulsed  within  the  churches  where  they 
are  made  to  feel  that  money  rules,  where  they  are  made 
to  feel  that  they  are  in  the  presence  of  Mammon, 
where  they  are  called  upon  to  say  Amen  to  the  lauda- 
tions of  those  who  have  grown  rich  by  grinding  them 
down  to  poverty. 

There  i^^  danger  to  selfishness,  danger  to  the  worship- 
ers of  ^Mammon  in  such  teaching,  which,  if  nothing  else 
can  move  them,  should  warn  them  to  desist.  And  this 
danger  is  that  the  oppressed,  seeing 

"  Right  forever  on  the  scaffold. 
Wrong  forever  on  the  throne," 
will,   driven   to   desperation,   resolve   that   oppressors 
shall  perish  with  oppressed. 

The  rich,  however  entrenched  behind  the  bul- 
warks of  centralized  capital,  however  enriched  by 
preying  upon  the  fruits  of  others'  labor,  cannot 
safely  ignore  the  working  classes.  The  working 
classes  have  rights,  and  no  church,  even  though  it  may 
be  so  exclusive  that  the  preacher  can  speak  from  his 
pulpit  as  "  we  the  rich  " — consider  his  duty  to  be  to 
minister  to  the  desires  of  the  rich,  and  not  to  the 
wants  of  the  poor  and  downtrodden — no  church  dare 
ignore  these  rights.  To  do  so  is  to  build  its  overthrow, 
for  churches  consecrated  to  the  worship  of  Christianity 
cannot  stand  as  temples  of  Mammon. 

Mammon  enthroned  in  the  pulpits  of  our  churches 
must  be  and  will  be  dethroned,  and  Christianity, 
slurred  and  outcast,  must  be  there  re-enthroned.  It 
will  be,  despite  all  that  the  worshipers  of  Mammon,  de- 
spite all  that  preachers  mIio  address  themselves  to 
lauding  the  rich  and  passing  the  poor  by  may  do  to  pre- 
vent; persistence  in  the  worship  of  Mammon  will  only 
add  to  the  severity  of  the  reckoning  that  awaits  the 
false  teachers,  false  teachers  for  money  and  wealth  and 
ease,  of  the  precepts  of  Christ. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  POPULISM. 

[April  l8t,  1899.] 

IT  is  the  fashion  of  some  to  sneer  at  the  doctrines  of 
equality  and  liberty,  to  pass  lightly  by  the  doctrine 
of  the  brotherhood  of  man  as  something  to  be 
sought  in  heaven,  not  to  be  practiced  and  recognized 
on  earth.  And  many  of  those  who  make  it  thus  a 
fashion  to  sneer  are  good  church-goers,  regular  fre- 
quenters of  Christ's  houses  of  worship,  and  declared 
believers  in  His  teaehingt^.  But  casting  out  the  doc- 
trine as  inapplicable  to  this  world,  scorning  and  slur- 
ring and  ridiculing  those  who  proclaim  it,  give  it  appli- 
cation to  conditions  of  our  every  day  life,  and  exhort  us 
to  practice  it  on  earth  even  as  it  is  practiced  in  heaven, 
these  frequenters  of  Christ's  houses  of  worship,  whose 
fashion  it  is  to  ridicule  those  who  proclaim  the  doc- 
trine of  the  brotherhood  of  man,  and  in  proclaiming  it 
give  it  practical  application,  are  Christians  only  in  out- 
ward form. 

The  church-goer  who  refuses  to  recognize  the  doc- 
trine of  the  brotherhood  of  man  as  applicable  to  this 
earth,  who  ignores  it  and  tramples  upon  it  at  his  con- 
venience, who  easts  it  out  as  unacceptable  in  our  pres- 
ent life  because  it  does  not  comport  with  his  schemes 
of  despoiling  his  fellow-man,  whose  fashion  it  is  to  pass 
over  this  doctrine  as  one  not  to  be  lived  up  to  on  earth, 
is  but  a  hypocritical  Christian.  To  our  mind  he  who 
would  pass  through  the  portals  of  heaven  must  give  ob- 
servance to  this  doctrine  on  earth,  comporl 
himself  in  accordance  therewath  that  he  ina> 
promote  by  his  life  peace  and  good  will  and  happiness 
on  earth,  not  bequeath  strife,  discontent,  suffering  and 


THE  CHURCH  AND  POPULISM.         163 

tears.  For  it  is  by  life  on  this  earth  that  man's  fitness 
to  pass  through  the  portals  of  heaven,  to  enter  into  a 
life  of  perpetual  bliss,  a  life  where  there  will  be  no  dis- 
cords, no  strife,  no  cause  for  tears,  no  bar  to  happiness, 
must  be  tested.  He  who  on  earth  has  sought  to  re- 
move injustice  and  oppression,  the  cause  of  discord  and 
t-trife,  who  has  sought  to  remove  the  cause  for  tears, 
lift  the  bars  to  happiness,  will  find  the  portals  of  heav- 
en flung  wide  open  to  him  in  welcome;  he  who  has 
stooped  not  at  injustice  on  earth  to  gain  his  ends,  who 
has  sought  wealth  l)y  despoiling  his  fellow  mortals  in  a 
way  to  bring  tears  and  suffering,  must  find  the  por- 
tals of  heaven  barred  against  him. 

This  is  what  Christ  taught  us;  this  is  the  meaning  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man,  a  doctrine 
given  to  us  not  to  be  passed  lightly  over  unheeded,  but 
for  our  observance  on  this  earth,  as  a  beacon  light 
pointing  the  way  to  a  higher  life.  He  told  us  not  only 
of  a  future  life;  He  taught  us  how  to  gain  that  life  for 
ourselves,  taught  us  the  necessity  of  leading  a  godly 
life  on  earth,  of  giving  our  pittance  to  make  the  world 
a  vale  of  happiness  and  not  of  tears  if  we  would  enter 
into  the  future  kingdom  of  eternal  happiness.  For  the 
ungodly  on  earth  cannot  be  permitted  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  and  to  disobserve  the  doctrine  of 
the  brotherhood  of  man,  to  trample  on  the  rights  of 
others,  to  despoil  one's  fellow-men,  seek  riches  in  a  way 
to  cause  injury  and  suffering  is  ungodly  on  earth.  So 
rhrist  taught  His  religion;  such  is  the  meaning  of 
Chrihtianity.  And  in  thus  proclaiming  the  meaning  of 
Christianity  we  are  not  dogmatic;  we  are  simply  pro- 
claiming self-evident  truths. 

And  these  truths  do  none  the  less  demand  recogni- 
tion, nor  is  the  observance  of  the  doctrine  of  th'e  broth- 
orhood  of  man  any  the  less  imperative,  if  we  would 
gain  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  uplifting 


164  THE    GKEAT    ISSUf:S. 

man  on  earth  to  a  hi^^hcr  state,  because  in  many  pul- 
l)it.s  these  truths  are  hidden  beneath  generalities  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  treated  as  a 
doctrine  to  be  dimly  preached  about,  but  not  to  be 
]iracticed  on  earth.  But  practiced  on  earth  that  doc- 
trine will  be  in  the  end,  for  those  peoples  who  come 
nearest  to  living  up  to  that  doctrine  will  outstrip  all 
others,  supplant  all  their  rivals,  for  the  very  fact  that 
they  come  nearest  to  the  observance  of  that  doctrine 
must  make  them  strongest  and  fittest  to  survive.  For 
where  there  is  greatest  justice,  greatest  equality  of  op- 
portunity, greatest  assurance  given  to  men  of  enjoying 
the  fruits  of  their  labor,  will  the  incentive  to  the  pro- 
duction and  saving  of  wealth,  to  invention  and  the 
economizing  of  labor,  be  greatest,  and  so  the  enrich- 
ment, the  progress,  the  advancement  of  the  race  be 
most  rapid.  And,  therefore,  by  a  process  of  natural  se- 
lection, in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  the  survival 
of  the  fittest,  in  accordance  with  those  divine  laws 
which  make  progress  inevitable,  retrogression  impos- 
sible, will  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  gain 
observance  on  earth. 

It  will  force  that  recognition  for  itself,  for  the  na- 
tions that  repudiate  it  will  be  blasted  for  their  disob- 
servance  of  that  divine  given  law;  the  nations  that  ob- 
serve it  will  prosper  and  progress  and  grow  stronger 
just  so  long  as  they  observe  it,  and  the  people  that 
most  perfectly  observes  it  will  outstrip  all  the  rest. 
So  the  observance  of  that  law  will  be  kept  to  the  fore 
and  the  progress  of  the  world  be  insured  by  the  very 
fall  of  empires,  a  decay  and  disintegration  that  it  is  or- 
dained shall  befall  empires  that  fall  away  from  the  ob- 
servance of  such  law.  It  is  a  curse  upon  the  peoples 
who  cast  out  the  laws  of  divine  justice,  a  blessing  upon 
the  peoplos  wlio  observe  those  laws;  retrogression  for 
those  who  disobey;  progress  and  strength  for  those  who 


THE  CHURCH  AXD  roruLisM.  165 

obey.  The  question  for  us  to-day  is:  shall  Ave  disobey 
and  decay  as  a  people  to  be  outstripped  by  some  people 
truer  to  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  than 
we,  or  shall  we  obey,  progress,  continue  to  grow  in 
strength,  outstrip  all  other  peoples  in  wealth,  in  hap- 
piness, in  the  upliftment  of  mankind,  in  all  that  makes 
a  nation  truly  great  and  deserving  of  its  greatness? 

So  long  as  a  nation  having  attained  greatness  shows 
itself  deserving  of  such  greatness  its  greatness  will  not 
desert  it.  But  lot  it  be  undeserving,  let  it  cease  to  ob- 
serve those  rules  that  made  it  great,  and  its  greatness 
will  crumble  away.  Ob:crvance  by  the  American  peo- 
ple of  the  doctrines  of  liberty,  equality  and  the  broth- 
erhood of  man,  oi)scrvance  to  a  greater  degree  than  ac- 
corded those  doctrines  by  any  other  people,  made  the 
American  people  great — greater  than  any  other.  Ob- 
servance of  those  doctrines  made  them  deserving  of 
their  greatness;  while  they  hold  to  the  observance  of 
those  doctrines  their  greatness  Avill  not  forsake  them. 

But  are  we  holding  to  the  observance  to  these  doc- 
trines with  the  strictness  that  alone  can  insure  our  con- 
tinued superiority  over  other  peoples?  This  is  the 
serious  question  before  us,  for  forsake  this  observance 
and  our  greatness  will  forsake  us.  And  trifling  with 
such  doctrines  as  equality,  libert}'-,  the  brotherhood  of 
man,  scoffing  and  sneering  at  them,  as  is  the  fashion 
of  some,  are  we  seriously  imperilling  our  greatness. 
Our  hope,  the  conviction  that  gives  us  unbounded  faith 
in  the  future  and  greatness  of  our  people,  is  that  those 
whose  habit  is  thus  to  scoff  and  scorn  form  but  a  small 
minority  of  the  American  people,  and  that  the  great 
majority,  inherently  honest  and  just,  anxious  that  this 
great  country  be  run  according  to  the  precepts  of 
Christ,  that  justice  be  done  and  equal  opportunities 
accorded  to  all  men,  will  not  long  tolerate  its  running 
by  those  who  refuse  to  give  observance  to  the  doctrine 


IGfi  TTIK    fUilCAT    ISSUES. 

of  ilie  brotherho(j(l  of  inan,  refuse  to  give  recognition 
to  tlie  cardinal  tenet  of  democracy,  and  are  bent  on  the 
despoilment  of  their  fellow-men.  Against  such  rules 
and  rulers,  against  those  who  fail  to  observe  the  doc- 
trine of  the  brotherhood  of  man,  against  those  who 
profit  by  the  disobservance  of  that  doctrine,  the  (chris- 
tian Churches  should  themselves  preach  the  crusade. 
In  many,  largely  dependent  for  support  on  the  contri- 
butions of  those  profiting  from  the  disobservance  of 
such  doctrine,  from  the  trampling  upon  the  teachings 
of  Christ,  we  doubt  not  the  preaching  of  such  crusade 
will  be  difficult;  that  many  pulpits  will  be  fdled  by  men 
Avho,  though  seeing  the  need  of  such  crusade,  will  lack 
the  courage  to  preach  it,  we  have  no  doubt;  but  that  in 
many  pulpits  will  be  found  men  ready  to  sacrifice  self 
for  the  upliftment  of  their  fellow-men,  ready  to  sacri- 
fice self  to  save  to  their  country  its  greatness,  we  have 
faith. 

"Latterly,"  writes  "Matthew  Marshall,"  in  the 
financial  column  of  the  ISTew  York  "  Sun,"  "  the  So- 
cialists have  made  many  converts  to  their  views  in  this 
country,  and  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that,  although 
most  of  them  are  unfriendly  to  all  forms  of  religion, 
they  have  found  allies  among  the  Christian  clergy, 
who,  abandoning  the  ancient  dogma  that  life  in  this 
world  is  but  an  insignificant  fraction  of  man's  exist- 
ence, and,  with  its  transitory  trials  and  sufferings,  of 
no  account  compared  with  the  eternity  of  happiness 
which  awaits  the  true  believer  upon  his  death,  employ 
the  machinery  of  the  church  to  promote  the  temporal 
as  well  as  the  spiritual  welfare  of  mankind." 

But  to  our  mind  it  is  not  remarkable  that  so  many 
Christian  clergymen  have  preached  populistic  doc- 
trines, but  remarkable  that  so  f'^w  have.  For  Populism 
proclaims  the  brotherhood  of  man,  proclaims  what 
Christ  taught  two  thousand  years  ago.  proclaims  it  not 


THE   CHURCH    AND    POPULISM.  167 

as  a  dim  unreality  to  the  observance  of  which  men  can- 
not be  expected  to  be  held,  but  as  a  doctrine  to  be  ob- 
served, to  be  followed  in  our  life  on  this  earth.  xVnd 
Populism  proclaiming  this,  demanding  justice  and 
equal  opportunities  for  all  men,  insisting  that  in  our 
government  and  in  our  every  day  life  observance  shall 
be  given  to  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man, 
why  should  not  clergymen  of  the  church  of  Christ  | 
preach  the  doctrines  of  Populism?  In  so  doing  they 
would  but  give  practical  application  to  the  teachings  of 
Christ. 

We  are  told  that  between  Socialists  and  Populists 
and  tlie  Church  there  is  want  of  reciprocity,  that  So- 
cialists are  "  unfriendly  to  all  forms  of  religion  "  and 
that  this  is  enough  reason  for  the  Church  to  be  un- 
friendly to  Populism,  which,  in  the  purview  of  "  Mat- 
thew Marshall  "  is  one  and  the  same  thing  with  Social- 
ism. But  to  the  Christian  Church  Populists  are  not 
unfriendly.  They  are  unfriendly  to  the  churches  only 
where  they  see  Mammon  in  the  pulpit  and  Christ  de- 
throned, only  where  men  bow  down  in  worship  at  the 
shrine  of  gold  and  not  at  the  brotherhood  of  man, 
only  the  churches  where  the  doctrine  of  peace  and  good 
will  on  earth,  of  equality  and  happiness,  of  justice  and 
liberty,  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  is  not  taught, 
churches  consecrated  to  the  worship  of  Christ  and  the 
promulgation  of  His  teachings,  desecrated  by  the  wor- 
ship of  Mammon.  For  the  true  Populist  is  the  most 
fervid  of  Christians;  his  cardinal  faith  is  the  cardinal 
tenet  of  Christianity,  the  brotherhood  of  man.  To 
that  teaching  of  Christ  he  aims  to  give  practical  appli- 
cation to  the  end  that  justice  may  be  seciired  on  earth, 
causes  for  strife  and  discord  removed,  peace  and  good 
will,  happiness  and  progress  reign. 

And  why  shoidd  not  the  nuichinery  of  the  Church  be 
employed  to  promote  the  temporal  as  well  as  the  spir- 


IGS  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

itual  welfare  of  mankind,  why  should  not  the  Church 
exert  itself  to  ameliorate  the  trials  and  sufferings  of 
mankind  instead  of  counseling  men  to  patiently  and 
uncomplainingly  bear  such  trials,  comforting  them- 
selves with  the  thought  that  those  trials  and  sufferings 
are  but  transitory  and  to  be  regarded  as  preparation 
for  a  future  life?  We  assert  that  trials  and  sufferings 
born  of  injustice  and  oppression  on  this  earth  are  no 
preparation  for  a  future  life.  Rather  does  the  tolera- 
tion of  such  trials  and  sufferings  show  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  brotherhood  of  man  is  not  given  observ- 
ance, and  surely  men  cannot  be  prepared  for  a  future 
life  by  the  non-observance  of  that  doctrine  in  the  pres- 
ent. It  is  only  by  our  life  on  earth  that  we  can  purify 
ourselves  for  entrance  into  heaven;  it  is  only  by  our 
life  on  earth,  by  observance  of  the  precepts  of  Christ  in 
our  earthly  life,  that  we  can  show  our  fitness  for  en- 
trance into  a  future  life,  where  all  things  will  be  pure, 
where  the  sordid  is  unknown.  And  surely  it  should  be 
the  effort  of  the  Church  to  aid  us  thus  to  purify  our- 
selves, to  aid  us  right  injustice  and  wrong,  give  appli- 
cation to  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man. 

True,  it  may  be  said  that  those  who  bear  the  trials 
and  sufferings  born  of  injustice  and  oppression  are  not 
guilty  of  any  un-Christian  act,  that  for  such  injustice 
of  man  to  man  and  from  which  they  suffer  they  are  not 
responsible,  that  submission  in  meek  spirit  will  gain 
for  them  easy  entrance  into  the  future  life  of  bliss, 
when  death  comes  to  relieve  them  of  their  earthly  suf- 
ferings, that  the  sufferings  which  their  poverty  entails 
upon  them  should  be  welcomed  as  the  price  of  heav- 
enly happiness.  But  as  "  Marshall  "  himself  points 
out,  "  the  patience  with  which  men  were  once  taught 
to  endure  remediable  evils  was  not  a  virtue." 

No  man  has  done  his  full  duty  on  earth  who  has  not 
sought  to  better  the  lot  of  his  fellow-men,  remove  in- 


THE    CHURCH    AND    POPULISM.  169 

justice,  lift  oppression.  And  he  who  in  the  presence  of 
injustice  has  sought  not  to  remove  it  cannot  escape 
responsibility  for  the  trials  and  sufferings  resultant 
therefrom.  To  the  extent  of  his  power  to  remove  such 
injustice,  and  that  he  fails  to  exert,  he  is  remiss  in  his 
duty  to  self  and  his  fellow-men.  To  tolerate  injustice 
when  capable  of  preventing  it  is  but  one  step  removed 
from  perpetrating  that  injustice.  It  is  the  duty  of 
every  man  to  do  what  he  can  to  make  life  on  this  earth 
something  akin  in  a  materialistic  sense  to  the  life  ex- 
pected in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  The  more  nearly 
akin  we  can  make  such  life  the  more  sure  can  we  be  of 
a  welcome  in  the  future  kingdom.  If  we  fail  to  make 
it  as  nearly  akin  as  lies  within  our  power  wc  are  remiss 
in  our  duty,  responsible  in  some  degree  for  trials  and 
Bufferings  on  this  earthly  sphere,  must  bear  the  onus 
and  have  it  to  explain. 

We  may  regard  this  earth  as  our  great  training 
school  for  entrance  into  the  spiritual  life  of  the  future, 
the  life  of  eternity.  x\nd  through  this  training  school 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  guide  us,  guide  us  as 
near  to  observance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood 
of  man  in  our  government  and  every-day  life  as  is  pos- 
sible, for  it  is  through  such  guidance,  guidance  in  the 
temporal  field,  that  the  Church  can  promote  our  spirit- 
ual welfare. 

In  short,  the  Church  can  help  us  to  do  our  duty  by 
our  fellow  men,  help  us  weed  out  injustice,  help  us 
destroy  all  those  things  destructive  of  equality  and  lib- 
erty, help  us  establish  on  earth  the  doctrine  of  the 
brotherhood  of  man  in  all  possible  perfection.  Against 
all  things  destructive  of  equality  and  of  the  brother- 
hood of  man,  against  all  things  that  hinder  the  ob- 
servance of  those  doctrines,  against  all  those  who, 
profiting  from  despoiling  their  fellow-men,  insist  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man,  of  equality 


r.  0  TJIE    tllJEAT    ISSUES. 

and  exact  justice  should  he  treated  as  an  unreality  and 
not  given  practical  application  the  Church  should  lead 
the  crusade.  And  that  this  crusade  should  be  found 
to  lead  along  Populistic  lines  should  turn  no  one  from 
the  crusade.  As  honest  men  preaching  the  crusade 
come  to  observe  this  they  must  sweep  their  prejudices 
away,  and  go  forward  with  clearer  insight,  firmer  step. 
When  they  awaken  to  the  fact  that  the  Republican  and 
Democratic  parties  are  the  protectors  of  injustice  and 
special  privileges,  of  railroad  rate  discriminations, 
schemes  of  overcapitalization,  trusts  and  combines, 
protectors  of  those  who  cast  overboard  the  doctrine  of 
the  brotherhood  of  man  as  not  fitting  their  purposes; 
when  they  awaken  to  the  fact  that  those  parties  op- 
pose the  practical  application  of  that  doctrine  to  our 
conditions,  and  to  the  end  that  justice  may  be  done 
and  equality  be  restored;  when  they  awaken  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  the  aim  of  the  People's  party  to  give 
such  application  to  the  teachings  of  Christ,  the  pres- 
ent aim  of  Eepublican  and  Democratic  parties,  con- 
trolled by  the  money  cliques,  to  prevent,  they  must 
lead  the  crusade  against  the  two  old  parties  and  rally 
to  the  support  of  the  new.  Populism  teaches  the 
brotherhood  of  man,  so  does  Christianity. 


CHRISTMAS    THOUGHTS. 

[December  30th,  1899.] 

ON  Christmas  Day  we  dole  oui  a  little  to  the 
needy  whom  we  have  stripped  of  the  fruits  of 
their  toil,  stripped  of  the  right  to  labor, 
obliged  to  pay  tribute  for  the  exercise  of  that,  a  Cod- 
given  right,  and,  thinking  ourselves  charitable,  pleased 
with  our  passing  exhibit  of  graciousnebs  and  kindness 
towards  our  fellow-men,  go  on  our  way  rejoicing,  quite 
forgetful,  aye,  oblivious,  of  our  inhumanity  to  man.  To 
strip  one's  fellow-man  of  the  fruits  of  his  toil,  to  get 
the  machinery  of  production  and  distribution  in  hand 
and  use  that  machinery  to  exact  tribute  of  men  for 
the  right  to  work,  is  not  brotherly.  Yet  in  this  way, 
in  a  way  to  make  countless  thousands  mourn,  do  men 
grasp  for,  and,  aye,  reap  riches  too.  Indeed,  to  grasp 
the  machinery  of  production  and  distribution  for 
selfish  ends,  systematically  organize  this  machinery 
into  trusts  and  monopolies  and  railroad  combines  for 
purposes  of  despoilment,  scatter  special  privileges  and 
deny  opportunities  until  men  are  obliged  to  put  them- 
selves under  tribute  for  the  right  to  work,  surrender 
a  part  of  the  fruit  of  their  toil,  and  v/hich  is  justly 
theirs,  for  the  right  to  labor,  is  the  quick  road  to 
wealth,  and  one  that  men  follow  with  alacrity. 

In  such  tribute  exacted  from  one's  fellow-men,  in 
the  gross  overcapitalization  of  corporations  of  all 
kinds,  in  the  manipulation  of  the  stock  exchange  mar- 
kets for  the  stri})ping  of  men  of  their  savings,  are 
founded  nearly  all  the  great  fortunes  of  to-day.  It  is 
so,    through   paths    of   injustice,  not    of   brotherhood, 


172  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

with  u  spirit  ])orn  of  <,^ree(l,  not  of  cliarity,  that  men 
seek  riches,  bowing  to  the  god  of  liaal  for  a  guide, 
trampling  the  precepts  of  our  Saviour  ruthlessly  un- 
der foot,  as  if  such  precepts  were  not  given  for  our 
guidance,  but  for  a  better  world,  and  .seek  riclies  with 
success.  Indeed,  they  look  upon  those  precepts  as  a 
pretty  conceit  of  a  Utopia,  as  impracticable  of  appli- 
cation in  our  earthly  lives,  as  out  of  harmony  with  the 
system  for  gathering  fortunes,  a  system  of  injustice 
and  greed  which  they  have  made  their  own,  and  rather 
look  down  with  pity,  the  pity  of  contempt,  upon  those 
who  regard  such  precepts  as  given  to  us  to  he  prac- 
ticed as  well  as  taught. 

And  those  who  have  disregarded  these  precepts  have 
prospered  mightily — in  a  worldly  sense — and  those 
who  have  striven  to  regard  them  have  not;  and  those 
who  have  striven  to  effect  changes  in  the  system  of  pro- 
duction and  distribution,  changes  to  release  the  many 
from  tribute  to  the  few  and  give  unto  them  the  rights 
that  of  right  are  theirs,  the  rights  to  equal  opportuni- 
ties of  labor  and  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  thereof,  but 
that  have  been  denied  to  them  by  the  crafty  and 
mighty  and  unscrupulous,  taking  greed  for  their  guide, 
stopping  not  at  injustice  and  disregarding  the  precepts 
of  Christ,  have  been  covered  with  maledictions.  And 
so  do  we  have  an  un-Christian  world — at  the  top. 
And,  worst  of  all,  our  churches  condone  the  acts  of 
those  who  so  ruthlessly  trample  on  Christ's  precepts, 
hold  such  precepts  so  lightly  as  to  ridicule  the  very 
thought  of  practicing  those  precepts  in  their  daily 
lives,  ridicule  such  thought  as  the  dream  of  imprac- 
ticables,  while  our  pulpits  ring  with  denunciations  of 
those  w^ho  believe  that  to  attain  a  hetter  world  we 
must  practice  those  precepts,  and  who,  speaking  thoir 
thoughts,  cry  out  against  injustice,  demand  that  those 
practices  by  which  the  few  strip  the  many  of  the  fruits 


CHRISTMAS    THOUGHTS.  173 

of  their  toil,  rear  fortunes  while  countless  thousands 
mourn,  shall  cease. 

But  shall  we  indulge  in  any  lament  over  the  lot  of 
the  reformer;  is  it  right  that  we  should?  It  is  true 
that  pursuit  of  altruistic  ideals,  efforts  to  lighten  the 
lot  of  mankind,  make  this  a  better  and  kinder  and  hap- 
pier world  to  live  in  are  often  rewarded  with  earthly 
discomforts.  And  we,  who  bear  such  hardships,  such  i 
sacrifices  as  the  reward  of  our  labors  for  mankind, 
nuiy  sometimes  feel  embittered  towards  a  world  so  ap- 
parently unfeeling  and  unresponsive,  that  ridicules 
and  spurns  us  for  our  efforts,  may  sometimes,  discour- 
aged, disheartened,  be  inclined  to  peevishness,  dis- 
posed to  cease  in  our  efforts  so  unrequited,  turn  our 
energies  in  other  directions,  give  up  the  unequal  fight. 

But  have  we  a  right  to  give  way  to  bitterness,  peev- 
ishness, discontent  and  drop  our  ideals,  cease  our 
efforts  to  uplift  mankind  because  crowns  of  thorns  may 
be  the  present  and  prospective  quittance  for  our 
labors?  Let  us  rem.ember  that  the  world  owes  its  ad- 
vance to  the  named  and  unnamed  heroes  of  the  past 
whoso  earthly  rev/ard  has  figuratively  been  the  cross, 
but  have  left  to  mankind  the  priceless  heritage  of  new 
ideas  and  thoughts  as  a  leaven  working  for  better 
things.  And  in  the  light  of  the  spirits  of  these  heroes, 
aye  of  the  sufferings  of  our  Saviour,  is  lamentation 
over  our  lot  worthy  of  us?    Surely  it  is  not. 

Mortal  we  arc,  sometimes  we  may  lament,  but  let 
us  not  so  far  give  way  to  lamentation,  to  discourage- 
ment, as  to  give  up  our  efforts  to  beat  down  the 
tyranny  of  the  strong  over  the  weak,  injustice,  man's 
inhumanity  to  man,  born  of  greed;  ourselves  succumb 
to  the  spirit  of  greed.  For  truly  there  is  a  better,  a 
more  worthy,  a  happier  spirit  to  follow,  that  of  love, 
the  brotherhood  of  man,  and  a  spirit  that  points  to 
higher  things,  that  followed  makes  nations  great  and 


174  THE    OKKAT    ISSUES, 

strong,  that  discarded  leads  to  decay.  For  nations, 
peoples,  cannot  escape  the  penalty  of  disobserving 
(jfod's  laws;  that  penalty  is  decay,  destruction,  an  efface- 
iiient  from  the  very  surface  of  the  earth,  and  the  great- 
est of  those  laws  is  the  brotherhood  of  man,  the 
antithesis  of  which  is  greed. 

Shall  we  then  begrudge  sacrifices  to  save  our  nation 
from  this  spirit  of  greed  that  corrupts  and  destroys, 
crushes  manhood,  the  national  life?  It  is  true,  and 
we  quote  from  the  Philadelphia  "  North  American," 
that  "  not  less  charity  but  a  larger  charity  is  the 
world's  sorest  need — a  charity  that  will  give  Christmas 
hospitality  to  new  thoughts,  or  to  old  thoughts  newly 
presented  to  fit  modern  needs,  even  when  their  logic 
means  consequences  hostile  to  the  privileges  of  the 
few  to  whom  the  mass  of  men,  and  the  earnings  of  the 
mass  of  men,  are  subject.  We  welcome  the  Edisons, 
the  Teslas,  the  Stephensons,  the  Wattses  and  all  who 
show  us  how  we  may  increase  our  wealth  by  improving 
the  machinery  of  production;  but  upon  those  who 
would  show  us  how  we  may  increase  the  happiness  of 
the  race  by  improving  the  machinery  of  distribution 
we  turn  no  Christmas  face.  To  great  soldiers  who  dis- 
play genius  for  killing  we  give  cheers  and  riches  and 
honors,  but  for  those  who  in  Christ's  and  humanity's 
name  plead  for  justice  and  mercy  and  peace  we  reserve 
the  cross." 

But  shall  we  begrudge  sacrifices  for  mankind  be- 
cause the  world  begrudges  us  so  much  as  a  charitable 
reception  for  our  thoughts,  extends  to  ns  no  plaudits, 
lait  points  to  the  cross  as  our  reward?  Though  the 
flesh  be  weak  and  sorely  tempted  we  surely  must  not. 

And  after  all  does  the  world  begrudge,  refuse  us  a 
charitable  reception  for  our  thoughts?  The  world 
that  doles  out  a  little  charity  to  the  needy  in  material 
things,  or  even,  in  its  narrow  philosophy,  condemns 


CHRISTMAS   THOUGHTS.  175 

even  this  poor  charily  as  the  breeder  of  the  very  evil.-, 
it  seeks  to  remedy,  surely  does.  But  is  this  all  the 
world?  Surely  no,  there  is  an  immensely  broader 
world  than  this,  the  under  strata  so  much  thicker  than 
the  upper,  that  knows  the  charity  that  gives  material 
things,  and  is  regarded  as  so  fine  by  those  who  give, 
"  is  no  cure  for  the  sufferings  of  the  world  that  spring 
from  poverty,  else  want  would  have  vanished  from  the 
globe  ages  ago."  And  this  world  is  not  un-Christian; 
it  has  a  welcome  for  the  thoughts  that  those  who  sup- 
port the  old  school  of  icy  political  ecenomy  which  ex- 
amines the  social  morass  with  interest,  not  to  remove 
but  to  justify,  has  no  welcome  for. 

It  is  true  that  it  is  most  difficult  to  get  such 
thoughts  before  this  welcoming  world,  and  so  is  it  also 
true  that  the  encouraging  welcome  of  this  world  comes 
to  the  ear  only  in  broken  whisperings,  not  the  volume 
which  enthuses  mon  with  the  spirit  of  victory,  for 
the  voice  of  this  world  is  largely  smothered,  the  so- 
called  mouthpieces  of  public  opinion,  the  great  news- 
papers, mouthpieces  for  those  with  money  not  those 
without,  are  not  open  to  it.  But  in  this  world  that  is 
crushed  down  because  not  united  in  resistance  there 
is  the  strength  to  crush  down  the  spirit  of  greed  and 
rear  in  its  place  a  l)ndy  politic  and  system  of  wealth 
production  and  distril)ution  resting  upon  the  sublime 
spirit  of  the  brotherhood  of  man.  And  this  world  is  a 
Christian  world.  To  this  let  Prof.  Wyckoff,  of  Prince- 
ton, a  well-to-do  student  of  sociology  who  has  con- 
scientiously sought  to  gain  a  first-hand  knowledge  of 
the  social  conditions  existing  among  the  working 
classes  by  working  as  one  of  them,  knocking  over  the 
country  in  various  capacities,  as  farm  laborer,  railroad 
"navvy,"  hotel  porter,  subscribe: 

"  A  thing  that  struck  me,"  he  writes.  "  was  the  at- 
titude of  workmen  toward  religion.     I  have  attended 


lis  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

many  of  the  Socialist  and  workingmen's  meetings  in 
Chicago,  and  was  much'  impressed  by  the  range  of 
knowledge  displayed  by  the  men.  They  would  sneer 
at  the  preachers,  but  Jesus  Christ  was  their  ideal.  The 
preachers  they  called  the  parasites  of  society.  They 
would  receive  the  name  of  the  Saviour  with  venera- 
tion, because  they  regarded  Him  as  the  ideal  of  the 
solidarity  of  the  human  race  and  the  brotherhood  of 
man.  It  was  a  great  surprise  to  me  when  I  learned  of 
the  attitude  of  the  workingmen  toward  religion  and 
their  reverence  for  Jesus  Christ." 

Therefore  let  us  take  courage,  for  though  our  na- 
tion be  un-Christian  at  the  top,  though  our  churches 
may  condone  the  acts  of  those  who  ruthlessly  trample 
on  Christ's  precepts  hut  by  hiring  the  front  pews  pur- 
chase indulgence,  it  is  sound  and  Christian  at  the  core. 
And  such  a  nation  cannot  be  deaf  to  appeals  to  the 
better  and  humaner  sides  of  man;  in  such  a  nation  the 
monster  selfishness  cannot  sway  so  many  men  or  so 
deeply  as  the  spirit  of  love  and  brotherhood;  in  such  a 
nation  the  spirit  of  love,  the  spirit  that  sets  for  a  bet- 
ter and  kinder  and  happier  time,  can  triumph  over  the 
spirit  of  greed  that  makes  for  the  downfall  of  nations, 
and  it  will  triumph  too,  if,  with  a  courage  not  to  be 
daunted  by  obstacles,  a  determination  that  counts  no 
sacrifices,  we  but  exert  ourselves  to  bring  the  great 
world  that  believes  Christ's  precepts  were  given  us  to 
be  practiced  to  assert  its  strength. 


POPULISM  AND  THE  GOSPEL  (JF  PEACE. 

[February  11th,  1899.] 

FROM  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth  rises  the  wail 
of  oppression  and  distress  that  oppression 
brings.  Some  in  blind  selfishness,  content  if 
they  can  gain  comforts  and  luxuries  and  revel  in  pleas- 
ures regardless  of  the  sufferings  of  their  fellow-men, 
may  close  their  ears  and  steel  their  hearts  against  it; 
we  hear  it  as  an  ominous  roar,  the  swelling  roar  of  an 
outraged  humanity  oft  denied  the  right  to  labor,  oft 
deprived  of  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  toil  and 
seeking,  somewhat  aimlessly,  but  earnestly,  insistently, 
for  justice,  relief.  Men  are  denied  an  equality  of  op- 
portunity, they  are  obliged  to  toil  for  those  enjoying 
special  privileges  and  for  a  recompense  barely  suffi- 
cient to  keep  body  and  soul  together,  insufficient  to 
enable  them  to  accumulate  wealth  and  rise  to  a  higher 
state.  And  if  perchance  sickness  overtakes  them,  they 
become  decrepit  as  a  working  machine  or  be  thrown 
out  of  work,  they  and  their  families  are  prone  to  suf- 
fer infinitely. 

The  despoilment  of  the  many  by  the  few  was  never 
so  systematized  and  effective  as  it  is  to-day.  True, 
labor  is  more  productive  than  ever  before,  a  livelihood 
should  be  easier  gained,  men  should  live  better,  their 
material  and  intellectual  lot  should  be  vastly  and 
steadily  raised,  raised  just  as  improved  machinery,  as 
greater  knowledge  applied  to  the  direction  of  industry 
makes  their  labor  more  productive.  Rut  this  in- 
creased productiveness  of  labor  goes  to  the  enjoyers 


178  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

of  special  privileges,  goes  to  enrich  the  favored  few. 
Thus  do  contrasts  between  riches  and  poverty  grow, 
thus  does  unrest  increase,  thus  is  poverty  by  very  com- 
parison made  harder  and  harder  to  bear. 

The  investor  is  robbed  of  his  savings,  the  wage- 
earner  is  made  to  pay  tribute  to  the  trusts  that  the 
railroads  build.  The  sacredness  of  contracts  is  art- 
fully broken  by  changes  in  the  value  of  money  engi- 
neered by  the  money  cliques,  of  course  in  their  inter- 
est and  to  the  detriment  of  those  who  toil.  Taxes  are 
levied  so  that  the  burdens  fall  largely  on  the  poor,  so 
that  the  rich  escape,  so  that  the  poor  pay  many  times 
the  taxes  in  proportion  to  their  earnings  as  the  rich. 

Thus  are  those  who  toil  put  under  tribute  for  the 
support  of  a  favored  few,  thus  do  men  gather  riches 
by  preying  on  the  fruits  of  others'  toil.  And  where 
there  is  robbery  by  the  strong  of  the  weak,  of  the  poor 
by  the  rich,  there  cannot,  even  though  such  robbery  be 
under  the  forms  of  law,  be  peace  on  earth  and  good 
will  to  men. 

Men  do  not  practice  the  gospel  of  peace,  and  failing 
to  so  practice  the  world  is  drifting  to  a  social  revolu- 
tion that  will  right  the  wrongs  of  the  oppressed.  This 
social  revolution  it  is  the  aim  of  Populism  to  control 
that  it  may  not  end  in  blood,  that  it  may  be  a  revolu- 
tion for  the  rendering  of  justice  not  the  wreaking  of 
vengeance.  Populism  recognizes  the  causes  of  the  wail 
going  up  to  heaven  from  suffering  humanity,  it  makes 
its  bounden  duty  the  removal  of  those  causes,  those 
causes  for  strife  and  bloodshed  on  earth;  it  demands 
that  justice  be  accorded  to  all,  it  preaches  the  Gospel 
of  Peace.  If  men  profit  not  from  its  teachings,  if  its 
warnings  are  not  heeded,  there  will  come  in  blood  the 
revolution  that  ought  to  come  in  peace.  The  way  to 
avoid  dire  strife  is  to  freely  accord  to  all  men  justice. 


POPULISM    AND    THE    GOSPEL    OF    PEACE,  1T9 

to  ])rotcct  lliem  in  their  rights,  to  insure  to  them  an 
equality  of  opportunity  in  tJie  production  of  wealth, 
and  free  enjoyment  of  the  wealth  they  produce;  as- 
sure to  them  the  right  to  work,  remove  the  causes  that 
give  them  just  ground  for  complaint.  To  effect  this  is 
the  mission  of  the  People's  party. 


WHAT  WE  STAND  FOR. 

[April  14th,  1900.J 

WE  stand  for  justice,  love,  equality — a  rule  of 
these  three  things  on  earth.  We  believe  in 
the  brotherhood  of  man — believe  this  doc- 
trine was  given  us  to  be  practiced,  not  merely 
preached.  It  is  tacitly  assumed  in  many  quarters  that 
it  is  impracticable  to  practice  this  doctrine  in  our  daily 
lives.  He  who  would  do  i^o  would  be  sadly  outdis- 
tanced in  the  race  for  material  wealth,  the  attainment 
of  which  is  the  modern-day  world's  test  of  success,  the 
goal  that  is  striven  for.  Therefore  this  doctrine  must 
be  thrown  to  the  four  winds — not  avowedly,  no,  but 
just  simply  ignored,  for  those  who  treat  this  law  as  a 
dead  letter  in  their  daily  lives  and  in  their  struggle  for 
riches  subscribe  themselves,  with  all  ontward  show  of 
sanctity,  as  believers  in  this  doctrine — thus  publicly 
subscribe  themselves  even  while  they  speak  with  scorn 
and  cover  with  heaps  of  ridicule  and  abuse  those  who 
maintain  that  we  should  regulate  our  daily  conduct  by 
the  rules  of  love,  justice,  charity,  not  the  rules  of  greed. 
But  for  our  part  we  gladsomely  take  the  scorn  and 
accept  the  heaps  of  ridicule  and  abuse  that  come  with 
refusal  to  throw  the  doctrine  of  brotherhood  to  tlie 
four  winds.  For  we  believe  in  that  doctrine,  believe 
that  the  road  to  true  success  in  life,  to  greatest  happi- 
ness and  contentment  of  spirit  is  to  be  had  in  follow- 
ing out  that  doctrine  in  our  daily  lives,  not  in  casting 
it  aside  as  impracticable.  For  there  is  a  higher  goal 
to  be  sought  in  life  than  the  gathering  of  riches,  a  goal 
the  attainment  of  which  can  bring  greater  happiness 
than  any  mere  possession  of  riches  can  bring.  Ivnowl- 


WHAT    WE    STAND    FOR.  181 

edge  of  having  been  the  means,  in  some  small  meas- 
ure, of  uplifting  one's  fellow-man,  alleviating  distress, 
rectifying  wrong,  can  give  greater  satisfaction  than  the 
possession  of  wealth,  gathered  by  grinding  the  heel  ou 
the  neck  of  mankind,  at  the  cost  of  one's  fellows,  pos- 
sibly can. 

Those  who  are  profiting  from  grinding  the  heel  on 
the  necks  of  their  brothers,  those  who  are  reveling  in 
riches  so  gained,  may  find  it  hard  to  remove  the  heel. 
They  may  feel  that  it  would  be  a  hardship  to  be  con- 
strained so  to  do.  But  with  all  the  riches  so  won  they 
cannot  purcluise  the  highest  happiness.  For  that  is 
something  that  money  cannot  purchase. 

In  the  enjoyment  of  the  pleasures  that  money  can 
purchase  they  may  believe  that  they  are  enjoying  the 
highest  happiness.  And  the  sufferings  of  the  many 
upon  whom  the  heel  of  oppression  is  ground  may  be 
banished  from  their  ken,  the  injustice  from  which 
they  profit  may  be  covered  to  their  ear,  hidden  from 
their  eye,  unknown,  unrecognized  to  them.  From  all 
this  they  may  hold  themselves  aloof  and  succeed  in  giv- 
ing it  no  thought.  Their  pleasures  may  be  undis- 
turbed by  any  thought,  aye,  any  knowledge,  of  the 
wrongs  perpetrated  upon  their  fellow-men,  their 
brother.s,  in  the  gathering  of  the  riches  in  which  they 
revel.  Indeed,  they  do  not  look  upon  such  fellow- 
men,  below  them  in  the  possession  of  worldly  goods, 
as  brothers  in  any  sense.  But  while  they  do  not  re- 
gard such  men  as  brothers  and  treat  them  as  such  they 
cannot  enjoy  happiness  in  its  highest  and  fullest  sense. 

They  may  believe  that  the  possession  of  riches  is 
the  high  road  to  happiness,  but  they  know  not  what 
true  happiness  is.  Nor  while  they  look  for  happiness 
in  the  pleasures  that  riches  may  buy  can  they  know. 
While  they  pursue  this  road  they  are  cut  off  from  en- 
joyment of  the  highest  happiness.     For  tliat  is  not  to 


182  THK    OREAT    ISSUKS. 

be  purchased  with  riches.  It  is  to  be  found  only  in 
helping  one's  fellow-men  and  therewith  self,  helping 
them  not  by  giving  to  the  poor  and  destitute  of  one's 
riches  but  by  taking  from  off  their  necks  the  heel  of 
oppression,  of  exaction,  of  injustice,  by  ridding  our- 
selves of  the  spirit  of  greed  that  begets  tyranny  and 
injustice.  For  to  give  of  one's  riches  to  the  destitute 
while  keeping  upon  their  necks  the  heel  of  injustice, 
of  monopoly,  of  exaction,  by  which  such  riches  are 
gathered  and  which  makes  them  destitute,  amounts  to 
nothing.  This  sort  of  giving,  this  charity  of  conde- 
scension that  tends  to  pauperize  and  degrade,  is  com- 
mon enough.  But  this  is  not  true  Christian  charity. 
The  help  that  we  extend  not  as  a  condescension  but 
as  a  duty  that  we  owe  to  our  fellow-men  as  brothers 
is  the  help  that  exalts  and  uplifts,  the  help  that  truly 
helps.  The  charity  of  condescension,  the  charity 
given  with  lordly  air,  with  the  thought  expressed  by 
manner  or  by  words  that  I  am  holier  than  thou,  is  the 
charity,  or  rather  dole  giving,  of  a  pagan  world,  of  the 
Eoman  lords  who  fed  the  scum  of  a  depraved  human- 
ity that  came  to  populate  the  imperial  city  where 
splendor  contrasted  with  poverty  as  nowhere  else  on 
the  known  globe — a  dole  giving  done  as  much  to  quiet 
this  scum  of  humanity  and  secure  the  riches  of  tWe 
Eoman  patricians  from  assaults  from  this  very  scum, 
a  scum  the  gathering  of  the  riches  had  made  so,  as 
from  charity.  And  such  giving  is  not  Christian  char- 
ity at  all.  It  is  on  the  same  level  as  the  buying  of 
indulgences. 

Further,  the  true  road  to  the  gathering  of  riches 
and  national  wealth  lies  in  following  out  the  doctrine 
of  brotherhood,  of  love,  of  justice,  not  of  greed.  For 
where  no  heel  bears  upon  the  neck  of  the  toiler  to  de- 
prive him  of  a  great  share  of  the  fruits  of  his  labor 
will  he  labor  with  greatest  vigor  and  results,  putting 


WHAT    WE    ISTAXD    FOE.  183 

the  strength  of  his  brain  into  his  arm,  as  he  will  when 
hope  and  ambition  are  not  dulled  by  seeing  the  results 
of  any  increased  production  on  his  part  taken  from 
him. 

As  the  labor  of  the  free  man  is  more  productive  than 
the  labor  of  the  slave,  and  for  the  reason  that  the 
slave  has  no  incentive  to  increase  the  productiveness 
of  his  labor,  no  incentive  to  throw  his  brain  into  his 
work,  so  will  the  labor  of  the  free  laborer  be  more 
productive  just  as  he  is  more  nearly  protected  in  the 
enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  his  toil,  and  will  more  large- 
ly share  in  any  increased  productiveness. 

Where  the  heel  of  monopoly,  and  exaction,  and  in- 
justice weighs  least  upon  the  neck  of  labor  will  the 
productiveness  of  labor  be  prone  to  most  rapidly  in- 
crease. The  path  to  riches  and  national  wealth  lies, 
then,  in  lifting  this  heel;  lies  in  giving  recognition 
in  our  lives  to  the  doctrine  of  brotherhood  and  not 
along  the  tracks  of  greed.  If  we  would  grow  rich  and 
strong,  keep  clear  of  the  danger  of  falling  into  na- 
tional decrepitude  as  have  great  empires  of  the  past, 
and  as  the  direct  result  of  their  very  accumulation  of 
wealth,  but  wealth  gathered  in  a  way  destructive  of  the 
manhood  of  the  masses  of  their  people,  let  us  follow 
out  the  doctrine  of  brotherhood,  of  love,  of  justice. 
Then  will  wealth  be  more  and  more  rapidly  produced, 
then  will  riches  accumulate  more  rapidly  than  ever  in 
the  past,  but  accumulate  not  in  puddles  as  now,  the 
few  vastly  rich  and  the  many  stripped,  but  be  widely 
distributed;  then  will  the  enjoyment  of  one  in  the  in- 
creased fruits  of  labor  be  the  enjoyment  of  all;  then 
will  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  not  destroying  the 
spirit  of  independence  among  our  people,  but  adding 
to  it,  be  a  source  of  national  strength,  not  of  weak- 
ness. 

So  do  we  spurn  the  idea  that  it  is  ordained  th^it  in 


184  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

our  daily  life  we  must,  in  order  to  succeed  in  the  race 
for  wealth,  trample  under  foot  the  doctrine  of  the 
brotherhood  of  man.  We  assert  that  not  to  follow 
such  doctrine  must,  in  the  end,  put  us  out  of  the  race 
for  the  goal  of  national  wealth.  In  following  the  road 
to  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  and  preaching  the  doc- 
trine of  brotherhood,  we  do  not  then  put  on  the  cloak 
of  hypocrisy.  The  wearing  of  that  cloak  we  leave  to 
those  who  rejoice  to  see  the  wealth  of  the  country 
gathered  into  puddles  and  still  preach  the  doctrine  of 
the  brotherhood  of  man.  And  hypocrites  enough  of 
this  kind  we  have. 

BROTHERHOOD. 

To  some  our  thoughts,  our  ideals,  may  appear  a  bit 
altruistic,  but  they  are  not  to  be  put  in  the  realm  of 
the  unattainable.  We  believe  in  a  rule  of  love,  jus- 
tice, equality;  we  would  apply  the  teachings  of  our 
Master,  and  those  things  that  we  have  to  propose  to 
give  them  application  are  not  impracticable.  On  the 
contrary  they  are  thoroughly  practicable.  We  aim  to 
constrain  the  removal  of  the  heel  of  oppression  and 
exaction  that  the  few  have  placed  upon  the  necks  of 
the  many.     It  is  this  for  which  we  stand. 

And  when  we  use  this  pronoun  "  we,"  we  do  not  use 
it  in  any  merely  personal  sense,  but  rather  in  that  im- 
personal sense  which  would  include  all  those  who  hold 
such  views  as  we  have  come  to  express,  and  which  we 
take  it  all  true  Populists  hold  from  the  heart.  For 
what  we  liave  been  teaching  is  Populism. 

For  measures  of  public  policy,  for  the  promised  ways 
of  reform  for  the  evils  that  beset  us,  we  have  but  one 
measure,  the  brotherhood  of  man.  We  try  to  weigh 
all  things  proposed  by  the  measure  of  this  doctrine. 
When  a  way  for  reaching  some  reform  is  unfolded  be- 
fore our  minds,  we  ask,  in  our  inner  conscience,  will  it 


WHAT    WE    STAND    FOR.  185 

stand  the  test  of  the  hrotherhood  of  man  and  not  he 
found  wanting?  If  found  wanting  we  discard  it  as 
unrighteous  and  unjust;  if  not  found  wanting  we  avow 
it.  This  is  the  test  we  have  set  for  ourselves.  By 
this  test  we  have  measured  the  reforms  we  advocate, 
and  have  not  found  them  wanting.  We  urge  and  ad- 
vocate them  because  their  adoption  would  do  justice 
not  merely  to  a  class  but  to  all  men,  do  wrong  to  none. 
In  effecting  reforms  and  lifting  unjust  burdens  from 
the  backs  of  the  many,  freeing  labor  from  the  grinding 
heel  of  oppression,  we  would  not  wrong  a  minority  be- 
cause the  people  who  have  been  grieved  against,  and 
who  constitute  the  majority,  have  the  power.  For 
might  does  not  make  right.  Grieved  against  as  the 
masses  of  our  people  have  been,  hard  as  the  heel  of 
the  favored  and  unscrupulous  few  has  ground  upon 
their  necks  and  screwed  from  them  a  large  share  of 
the  products  of  their  toil,  for  which  no  value  has  been 
given  in  return,  they  breathe  no  spirit  of  vengeance. 
For  those  who  have  profited  from  measures  of  injustice 
they  have  charity.  All  they  ask  is  for  justice,  and  to 
others,  though  their  one  time  oppressors,  they  would 
accord  exact  justice  even  as  they  demand  it  for  them- 
selves. 

DIRECT    LEGISLATION. 

It  is  for  this  that  we  stand.  We  believe  that  men 
are  born  with  equal  rights,  that  to  deprive  men  of 
them  by  giving  to  others  special  privileges  is  a  crime, 
and  as  men  are  born  with  equal  rights  they  have  an 
equal  right  to  express  themselves  and  take  part  in 
their  government.  If  they  are  deprived  of  this  oppor- 
tunity to  Lake  part  in  their  own  government,  make 
their  voices  hoard  and  their  will  done,  they  will  be  de- 
nied equal  rights  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  full  fruits 
of  their  toil,  for  special  privileges  will   be  granted. 


18G  TJIK    GRKAT    ISSUES. 

discrimiiiutions  will  be  tolerated.  And  of  this  oppor- 
tunity our  people  largely  deprive  themselves  when 
they  place  their  governnit-nt  wholly  in  the  hands  of 
representatives,  delegate  their  legislative  powers,  the 
power  to  sell  or  give  away  franchises  and  special  privi- 
leges, to  representatives.  For  Avhen  they  delegate 
such  power  to  representatives,  the  power  to  sell  fran- 
chises and  special  privileges  for  private  profit,  they 
subject  such  representatives  to  temptation  and  sow 
the  seeds  of  corruption.  And  this  power  we  have  dele- 
gated, and  these  seeds  have  been  prolilically  sown. 

So  we  have  corruption  in  government,  so  have  we 
the  people's  Lirthright  to  an  equality  of  opportunity 
given  away,  for  it  is  this  that  is  done  when  franchises, 
publicly  licensed  monopolies,  are  granted  and  special 
privileges  given.  And  that  the  people  may  win  back 
this  birthright  we  urge  that  they  assert  their  right  to 
take  direct  part  in  their  government;  that  they  refuse 
to  longer  delegate  full  powers  of  government,  though 
it  be  for  limited  periods  at  a  time,  into  the  hands  of 
representatives;  that  they  keep  in  their  own  hands  a 
superior  power,  a  power  superior  to  that  which  they 
delegate,  a  power  to  veto  by  direct  vote  any  acts  of 
their  representatives,  a  power  to  enact  by  direct  vote 
any  laws  they  may  desire,  but  which  their  representa- 
tives may  hesitate  to  pass — hesitate  because  of  influ- 
ence exerted  by  those  profiting  from  the  enjoyment  of 
special  privileges  and  ready  to  pay  for  a  perpetuation 
thereof.  So  do  we  stand  for  Direct  Legislation,  for 
we  believe  in  democratic  government,  in  a  government 
of,  by  and  for  the  people.  And  until  we  have  such 
government  we  cannot  expect  that  justice  wall  he  ren- 
dered to  all  the  people.  When  we  have  we  can,  for 
the  people,  as  a  whole,  are  inherently  just. 


WHAT    WE    STAND    FOE.  187 

HOXEST    MONEY. 

So  also  do  we  stand  for  honest  money — money  that 
will  ever  preserve  the  equities  of  contracts,  that  will 
do  justice  between  creditor  and  debtor.  And  this  a 
money  of  liuctuating  value,  such  as  gold  has  ever  been, 
can  never  be.  To  get  a  money  of  stable  value  we  must 
have  a  money  the  supply  of  which  it  will  be  in  our 
power  to  regulate,  so  that  the  ratio  between  the  supply 
of  and  demand  for  money  will  never  change.  The  de- 
mand for  money  we  have  not  in  our  power  to  regu- 
late. That  is  dependent  on  trade  activity,  on  diversi- 
fication of  industries,  on  the  growth  of  wealth;  things 
that  may  or  may  not  keep  pace  with  the  growth  of 
])opulation,  that  in  a  healthy  state  ought  far  to  exceed 
it.  But  supply  we  have  it  in  our  power  to  regulate  if 
only  we  use  for  our  counters  material  that  can  be  pro- 
duced cheaply  and  at  command.  Of  course  if  we  use 
gold  or  silver  the  supply  must  be  limited  to  the 
amount  produced,  an  amount  varying  greatly  with  the 
accidents  of  discovery.  And  in  such  case  we  must  ex- 
pect the  value  of  our  money  to  fluctuate.  But  if  we 
use  paper  for  our  counters,  and  paper  is  safer  than 
coin,  for  it  cannot  be  so  easily  counterfeited,  we  may 
keep  it  in  our  power  to  regulate  the  supply  of  money, 
according  to  the  changes  in  demand  and  the  changes 
that  ever  will  be  indicated  to  us  by  changes  in  the 
price  level.  For  prices  of  commodities  are  the  meas- 
ure of  the  value  of  money,  the  index  of  its  purchasing 
power.  A  falling  price  level  means  that  money  is 
growing  dearer  just  as  surely  as  a  rising  price  level 
means  that  money  is  growing  cheaper.  And  by  in- 
creasing the  supply  of  money  Avhenever  the  price  level 
tends  to  fall  can  we  prevent  money  from  growing  dear- 
er,just  as  by  restricting  the  rate  of  issuing  money,  when 
the  price  level  tends  to  rise,  we  can  prevent  money 
from  growing  cheaper.     Thus  can  a  money  of  stable 


188  THE   GBEAT   ISSUES. 

value  be  maintained,  a  money  that  will  not  at  times 
grow  dearer,  rob  debtors,  take  away  the  profits  of  in- 
dustry, paralyze  industrial  activities,  at  other  times 
grow  cheaper,  rob  creditors,  stimulate  speculative  ven- 
tures, that  in  the  end  must  collapse,  bringing  in  the 
wake  panic,  stagnation,  industrial  paralysis.  So  do 
we  stand  for  honest  money,  and  standing  for  honest 
money  for  paper  money. 

NATIONALIZATION  OF   OUR  RAILROADS. 

We  see  our  railroads  used  to  deprive  our  people  of 
equal  rights  and  equal  opportunities.  We  see  better 
rates  given  to  some  shippers  than  to  others,  and  we 
see  those  some  prosper  while  the  others  are  driven  out 
of  business.  And  we  have  grave  suspicion,  a  suspicion 
that  turns  to  conviction  when  we  see  how  railroad 
managers,  in  many  cases,  gather  to  themselves  great 
fortunes  in  short  spaces  of  time,  that  the  favored  ship- 
pers are  sharing  their  rebates  with  such  managers, 
aye,  are  favored  because  they  do.  Again,  do  we  see 
our  railroads  discriminating  against  some  localities 
and  in  favor  of  others,  causing  business  to  stagnate 
and  property  to  shrink  in  value  in  the  some  and  busi- 
ness to  flourish  and  property  appreciate  in  the  others. 
And  we  suspicion,  and  our  suspicion  is  proven  by  re- 
sults, that  those  w^ho  control  the  fixing  of  freight  rates 
buy  up  the  property  that  they  cause  to  depreciate,  and 
then  when  they  hold  such  property  cause  it  to  appre- 
ciate by  a  reversal  of  the  same  power  that  depressed 
its  value.  And  in  the  operation  we  often  see  railroads 
wrecked  even  as  they  do  the  wrecking.  But  when  the 
railroads  are  wrecked  the  cliques  are  found  to  have 
their  interests  staked  in  properties  along  the  lines,  and 
when,  by  a  squeezing  up  of  freight  rates,  such  indus- 
trial properties  are  wrecked  and  the  earnings  of  the 
roads  increased,  such  cliques  are  found  to  have  their 


WHAT    WE    STAND    FOR.  189 

interests  staked  in  the  railroad  properties.  For  they 
are  found  to  have  had  more  than  an  inkling  of  what 
was  to  take  place.  For  theirs  is  the  hand  on  the  lever, 
and  moving  that  lever  that  gives  and  takes  away  pros- 
perity they  have  not  merely  an  inkling  of  what  is  going 
to  happen;  they  know.  And  so  do  we  have  wealth 
stripped  from  the  hands  of  the  many  and  gathered  in 
the  hands  of  the  unscrupulous  few.  So  do  we  see 
wealth  centralized,  and  trusts,  sheltered  by  railroad 
discriminations,  grow.  Thus  through  the  railroads 
the  many  are  taxed  for  th(!  benefit  of  the  few,  thus  are 
men  deprived  of  equal  opportunities.  And  that  such 
may  be  restored  to  them,  that  this  tyrannous  taxation 
of  the  public  for  private  ends  may  cease,  we  stand  for 
government  ownership  of  our  railroads. 

PUBLIC  OWNERSHIP  OF  PUBLIC  FRANCHISES  AND 
TRUSTS. 

And  as  the  giving  away  of  public  franchises  is  a  giv- 
ing into  private  hands  of  the  power  to  tax,  and  as  the 
exercise  of  such  power  for  the  promotion  of  private 
ends  is  necessarily  destructive  of  that  equality  of 
rights  which  we  are  taught  our  government  was  insti- 
tuted to  preserve,  we  stand  for  the  public  ownership 
of  public  franchises.  So  also,  bearing  in  mind  that 
men  are  born  with  equal  rights,  that  taxation  at  the 
public's  hands,  much  less  by  private  hands,  cannot  be 
Justified  unless  the  full  value  and  more  of  that  which 
is  taken  as  taxes  be  returned  to  the  public  that  pays, 
we  turn  our  eyes  upon  trusts  and  combinations  that 
undoubtedly  make  possible  savings  and  economies  in 
the  production  and  distri])ution  of  wealth,  1)ut  are  or- 
ganized with  the  prime  purpose  of  reserving  the  bene- 
fits of  such  savings  and  economies  for  the  profit  of  the 
few  and  manage  so  to  do.  For  here  we  have  taxation 
of  the  many,  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  general  public. 


190  THE    GREAT    JSSUES. 

])\\i  for  private  ends,  and  in  Die  levying  of  this  taxa- 
lioii  there  is  a  trespassing  on  the  rights  of  the  many. 
('oTnl)inations  bringing  l)enefits,  but,  through  the  vise 
of  the  monopoly  power  that  naturally  comes  with  such 
combinations,  reserving  such  benefits  for  the  profit  of 
the  few,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  government  to 
take  over  these  monopolies,  and  so  take  out  of  private 
hands  this  taxing  power  tliat  tlie  benefits  of  combina- 
tion may  accrue  to  all  the  people,  not  the  few  alone. 
And  so  for  this  we  stand. 

FAIR   TRADE. 

We  believe  that  in  fair  trade  he  who  buys  must 
profit  even  as  he  who  sells.  And  this  sort  of  trade  as 
it  brings  good  will  as  well  as  profit,  promotes  peace, 
not  discord,  we  would  encourage  with  all  the  w'orld. 
Where  we  have  not  the  natural  advantages  that  other 
peoples  may  possess  for  the  production  of  some  arti- 
cles, and  where  those  other  peoples,  in  the  production 
of  some  other  articles  that  we  can  economically  pro- 
duce, must  labor  under  natural  handicaps,  it  is  to  our 
advantage  to  buy  that  Avhich  we  are  under  a  handi- 
cap in  producing  for  ourselves,  and  equally  to  the  ad- 
vantage of  others  to  buy  that  which  they  have  not  nat- 
ural advantages  for  producing  for  themselves.  Thus, 
as  we  cannot  raise  sugar,  save  under  natural  handi- 
caps, and  many  of  the  countries  to  the  south  of  us  can- 
not raise  breadstuffs,  save  laboring  under  similar 
handicaps,  an  exchange  of  breadstuffs  for  sugar  will 
be  mutually  profitable,  profit  us  and  profit  them,  both 
as  buyers  and  sellers,  secure  us  our  sugar  and  them 
their  breadstuffs  for  less  expenditure  of  labor.  And 
the  placing  of  obstacles  in  the  way  of  such  trade  is 
unwise,  for  it  must  turn  trade  from  its  natural  course 
and  deprive  our  people  of  their  natural  rights.  If  in 
any  country  where  there  be  no  natural  obstacle  to  the 


WHAT    WE    STAND    FOR.  191 

production  of  some  article  that  it  does  not  produce,  be 
no  obstacle  save  one  of  artificial  nature,  such  as  the 
pressure  that  a  long  established  and  rich  industry  in 
another  country  may  bring  on  those  who  may  attempt 
to  rear  up  a  competing  industry,  the  pressure  of  un- 
derselling be  brought  to  hold  on  to  monopoly,  that  will 
bring  lower  prices  temporarily,  but,  if  successful, 
higher  prices  in  the  long  run,  then  by  all  means  let 
import  duties  be  imposed  to  protect  those  building  up 
the  competing  industry.  For  such  protective  duties 
can  be  economically  defended,  and  rest  on  something 
broader  and  sounder  than  class  selfishness.  But  pro- 
tective duties  that  shelter  our  own  home  trusts  can- 
not be  so  defended,  and  ought  to  be  removed.  Nor 
can  duties  on  goods  imported  from  countries  of  our 
own  hemisphere  be  so  defended.  Such  duties  cannot 
be  regarded  as  artificial  obstacles  raised  to  overcome 
or  offset  artificial  advantages  that  other  peoples  may 
possess  over  us.  For  the  only  advantages  that  the  peo- 
ples of  tropical  America  have  over  us  are  their  nat- 
ural advantages.  And  so  import  duties  on  the  pro- 
ducts of  such  peoples  can  only  be  regarded  as  obsta- 
cles to  the  carrying  on  of  a  mutually  profitable  trade, 
and  as  such  we  should  remove  them.  For  this  we 
stand  and  stand  for  no  half  way  measures,  but  for  an 
American  Zollverein. 

LIBERTY, 

Nor  can  we  see  that  our  course  in  the  Philippines 
can  stand  the  test  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  and  not 
be  found  unrighteous.  As  our  course  is  dictated  there 
by  motives  of  greed,  as  justice  and  love  and  charity  for 
the  failings  of  others  demand  that  we  encourage  the 
Filipinos  in  their  aspirations  and  not  put  down  upon 
such  the  crushing  foot  of  might,  we  stand  for  giving 


193  THE   ORKAT   ISSUES. 

those  people  their  independence,  helping  them  fo 
build  up  a  republic. 

Thus  for  all  these  things  we  stand;  for  regard  for 
the  doctrine  of  brotherhood,  of  love,  of  justice,  of 
equal  rights  demands  it.  And  thus  standing,  we  can- 
not abate  pne  jot  of  our  demands  for  the  sake  of  vic- 
tory, even  could  victory  be  won  by  doing  so,  which  we 
deny.  For  we  hold  to  the  position  we  do  because  re- 
gard for  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  de- 
mands it,  and  so  to  abandon  our  position  in  any  par- 
ticular would  be  to  stamp  ourselves  false  to  that  doc- 
trine that  we  proclaim  ourselves  believers  in,  stamp 
ourselves  unworthy  of  our  cause.  And  this  would  be 
to  invite  deserved  defeat,  not  pave  the  way  to  victory. 
To  the  great  doctrine  that  is  the  keystone  of  our  arch 
we  cannot  afford  to  be  false,  even  could  we  hide  our 
falsity  in  our  own  hearts.  For  it  is  only  conscious- 
ness of  doing  what  we  feel,  aye,  know  to  be  right, 
that  strengthens  our  arm.  Deprive  us  of  this  sustain- 
ing force  that  gives  us  energy  and  courage  to  strive  for 
the  right,  and  in  the  end  must  give  us  victory,  and  our 
arm  must  fall  palsied  by  our  side. 

Shall  we  then  deprive  ourselves  of  this  sustaining 
force  that  no  one  else  can  deprive  us  of?  Shall  we  seek 
the  right  by  compromising  with  evil,  by  covering  our 
eyes  to  wrong?  Shall  we  anywhere  turn  our  back  on 
what  is  demanded  of  us  by  regard  for  the  doctrine  of 
brotherhood,  shall  we  think  of  surrendering  principle 
for  the  sake  of  choosing  between  two  evils,  shall  we 
permit  greed  to  tempt  us  from  that  which  is  right  a's 
we  are  given  to  see  the  right  or,  unswerving  in  our 
faith,  abating  no  jot  or  tittle  of  principle,  firm  in  con- 
sciousness of  right,  go  forth  boldly  and  courageously, 
resolved  to  be  true  to  ourselves  and  the  doctrine  we 
proclaim  above  all  things?  Let  us  go  forward.  And 
then  we  will  win,  for  we  are  right  as  the  eternal  stars. 


OUR  PLATFORM. 

[May  26th,  1900.— Couimeiit  on  Pluifonn  Adopted  by  the  National  Convention 
of  the  People's  Party  at  Cincinnati,  May  10th,  1900.] 

AS  a  succinct  statement  of  the  tenets  of  the  Peo- 
ple's party,  of  the  demands  of  a  party  whose 
guiding  principle  is  that  it  is  safe  to  trust  the 
people  to  do  their  own  governing,  Populists  will  find 
the  platform  adopted  by  their  convention  at  Cincinnati 
highly  acceptable.  No  exception  will  be  taken  to  it 
by  good  Populists;  it  must  win  the  approval  of  all  be- 
lievers in  popular  government  who  will  take  the  pains 
to  carefully  peruse  it.  For  the  spirit  that  breathes  in 
that  platform  is  trust  in  the  people.  In  that  spirit 
was  it  written,  it  is  that  spirit  which  pervades  it. 

The  aim  of  the  People's  party  is  to  uplift  all  man- 
kind. It  recognizes  the  truth  proclaimed  in  our 
Declaration  of  Independence  that  governments  ought 
of  right  to  be  instituted  for  this  end,  that  governments 
not  so  instituted  have  by  nature's  law,  not  the  law  of 
kings,  no  right  to  exist,  that  such  ought  not  to  be  per- 
petuated but  destroyed.  It  holds  that  to  uplift  man- 
kind governments  must  institute  on  earth  a  rule  of 
justice  and  love.  It  holds  this  as  a  truism.  It  knows 
that  to  place  power  to  rule  over  the  many  in  the  hands 
of  a  few  is  to  subject  those  few  to  temptation;  it  recog- 
nizes that  when  men  are  tempted  they  are  prone  to 
fall,  for  the  best  of  men  are  frail.  It  feels  therefore 
that  putting  the  powers  of  government  in  the  hands 
of  one  or  of  a  few,  subjecting  men  to  temptation,  must 
lead  to  a  rule  of  greed  rather  than  of  justice  and  of 
love,  a  rule  such  as  must  lead  to  the  degradation 
rather  than  the  upliftment  of  mankind. 


194  THE    OKKAT    [SSUES. 

So  (loos  tlie  Pooplf's  ])arty  scorn  the  idea  of  govern- 
Tiient  1)}'  the  Divine  right  of  kings  even  as  the  framers 
of  tlie  Dechiration  seorncd  such  idea.  The  People's 
party  believes  in  a  higher  law  of  government.  It  be- 
lieves that  all  men  are  by  Divine  right  sovereign,  that 
no  man  has  a  Divine  right  to  rule  over  his  fellows.  It 
b(lieves  that  no  man  should  be  subjected  to  tempta- 
tion by  being  given  exclusive  powers  of  government 
over  others.  For  is  it  not  our  constant  prayer  that 
we  may  be  delivered  from  temptation,  and  as  such  is 
our  prayer  should  not  our  aim  be  to  deliver  others 
from  temptation,  not  put  temptation  before  them? 
And  such  is  the  aim  of  the  People's  party.  As  its  mis- 
sion is  the  upliftment  of  all  mankind  so  its  aim,  as  the 
means  to  this  end,  is  the  establishment  on  earth  of  a 
rule  of  justice  and  love.  And  such  rule  it  feels  cannot 
be  established  until  there  is  in  fact  a  government  of 
the  people,  by  the  people;  a  government  in  which  those 
chosen  to  serve  the  people  shall  not  be  superior  to  the 
people,  shall  be  stript  of  power  to  thwart  the  people's 
will,  shall  be  servants,  honored  and  well  paid,  but  not 
rulers. 

THE  VOICE  OF  THE  PEOPLE  THE  VOICE  OF  GOD. 

Let  the  power  of  government  rest  with  the  whole 
people,  and  it  will  be  to  the  interest  of  the  governing 
force  to  establish  a  rule  of  justice  and  love,  for  such 
rule  will  tend  to  the  upliftment  of  the  whole,  any 
other  rule  will  tend  to  the  injury  of  the  whole,  and 
there  will  be  no  temptation  to  establish  other  than 
just  rule.  And  then  may  the  establishment  on  earth 
of  such  rule  as  will  uplift  mankind  be  counted  upon. 
Deliver  men  from  temptation  and  they  will  not  do 
wrong.  This  is  the  cardinal  truth  on  which  men  have 
founded  their  belief  in  democratic  government  as  su- 
perior to  autocratic.     This  is  the  truth  on  which  this 


OUR    PLATFOK.M.  li)5 

republic  Mas  roared,  this  is  the  truth  on  which  the 
People's  party  builds.  It  is  building  on  this  truth  that 
it  puts  trust  in  the  people,  that  while  disclaiinin;^;  as 
absurd  the  doctrine  that  the  king  can  do  no  wrong,  it 
is  ready  to  assert  that  the  people  can  do  no  wrong, 
that  while  spurning  as  timeworn  and  sacrilegious  the 
claim  that  the  voice  of  the  King  is  the  voice  of  God, 
does  proclaim  that  the  voice  of  the  People  is  the  voice 
of  God.  For  God  works  on  earth  through  His  crea- 
tures. Through  us  He  works  out  His  purposes.  When 
in  serious  mood  and  recognizing  our  own  utter  insigni- 
ficance in  the  presence  of  God's  great  works  we  ask 
ourselves:  what  are  we  here  for?  the  answer  in  the 
word  of  our  Saviour  is  given  us,  an  answer  which  we 
cannot  look  behind  but  which  with  all  its  inscrutable- 
ness  is  satisfying  to  our  reason:  to  work  for  the  uplift- 
ment  of  our  fellow-men,  to  train  ourselves  in  ways  of 
justice  and  love  and  brotherhood,  so  prepare  ourselves 
for  a  future  life,  a  future  sphere  of  usefulness.  And 
as  children  of  a  great  common  Father,  some  of  us 
worthy  as  some  are  unworthy,  witnessing  the  l)eautiful 
harmony  and  purit}^  of  nature's  works  that  surround 
us,  exalted  by  the  thought  that  men,  too,  by  their  na- 
ture must  be  inherently  pure  and  exalted  in  purpose, 
that  it  is  temptation  alone  that  has  made  some  of  us 
unworthy,  that  removal  of  temptation  must  purify  and 
regenerate  the  world,  that  the  placing  of  the  powers 
of  government  in  the  hands  of  the  whole  people  and  in 
such  way  that  such  powers  need  never,  even  temporar- 
ily, pass  out  of  their  hands  must  largely  ])ut  an  end  to 
the  temptation  to  do  wrong  as  a  factor  in  our  own  sys- 
tem of  government,  leave  only  the  temptation  to  do 
right  as  a  factor  influencing  our  governing  force,  the 
whole  people,  we  feel  that  in  the  voice  of  that  whole 
people  would  ever  be  heard  the  voice  of  right,  of  jus- 
tice, of  love — the  voice  of  God. 


196  THE    OKEAT    ISSUES. 

DIRECT  LEGISLATION. 

Thus  it  is  that  the  People's  party  puts  its  trust  in 
the  people  and  builds  on  that  trust.  Thus  it  is  that 
it  is  ready  to  say  that  whatever  the  people  ordain  will 
be  lor  the  best,  ready  to  proclaim  that  where  there 
is  a  people's  government  there  will  be  a  government 
.sui)erior  to  evil  temptation,  a  government  that  will  es- 
tablish a  rule  of  justice  and  of  love — the  rule  that 
])iivcs  the  way,  that  is  requisite  to  the  upliftment  of 
mankind. 

It  sees  that  a  people's  government,  a  government  in 
which  the  governing  powers  are  never  passed  beyond 
the  control  of  the  people,  we  have  not  now;  that  we 
will  never  have  such  a  government  while  the  supreme 
power  is  passed  for  stated  periods  to  chosen  repre- 
sentatives, who  once  chosen  have  power  to  do  what 
they  will — never  have  such  a  government  until  by 
reservation  there  rests  with  the  people  power  to  pass 
by  direct  vote  and  at  any  time,  over  the  heads  of  their 
representatives,  any  legislation  that  such  representa- 
tives may  refuse  to  pass;  until  there  rests  with  the 
people  poAver  to  veto  by  direct  vote  any  legislation  not 
to  their  liking  that  their  representatives  may  pass; 
until  there  rests  with  the  people  power  to  recall  by 
direct  vote,  at  any  time,  any  representative,  any  ser- 
vant chosen  by  the  people,  who  may  persistently  work 
counter  to  their  will,  defy  public  opinion.  But  it  is 
such  a  government  that  the  People's  party  pledges  it- 
self to  see  established.  It  proposes  to  re-shape  our 
system  of  government  so  that  such  powers  of  direct 
legislation,  veto,  and  recall  of  unworthy  servants,  shall 
rest  with  the  people,  so  that  the  will  of  the  people 
shall  be  law  and  then  it  has  faith  that  there  will  be 
just  law.  At  present,  having  chosen  their  servants, 
the  people  are  powerless  to  have  their  will  done  if 
their  once  chosen  servants  refuse  to  do  it,  powerless 


OUR    PLATFORM.  197 

to  prevent  the  doing  of  things  counter  to  their  will. 
For  their  servants  once  chosen  they  have  no  power  to 
give  orders  to  them,  no  power  to  dismiss  them  before 
the  expiration  of  stated  periods — not  even  though 
those  servants  may  be  profiting  themselves  by  sacrific- 
ing the  interests  of  the  people.  What  is  more,  and 
worse,  when  they  choose  their  servants  they  part  with 
the  power  to  do  things  for  themselves  which  their  ser- 
vants may  refuse  to  do  for  them,  absolutely  tie  their 
hands  so  that  their  servants  become  their  masters. 
And  this  is  all  wrong.  The  People's  party  insists  that 
when  the  people  choose  servants  they  should  retain 
this  power,  the  power  to  act  for  themselves  if  their 
servants  refuse  to  act  as  they  direct;  it  insists  that 
when  they  elect  their  servants  they  should  retain  the 
power  to  dismiss  such  servants  when  they  prove  un- 
faithful to  their  trust.  For  the  people  to  surrender 
such  powers  is  but  to  put  powers  in  the  hands  of  their 
servants  such  as  subject  those  servants  to  fearful 
temptation,  is  but  to  invite  the  corruption  of  those  ser- 
vants. It  leads  to  a  degradation  of  the  public  service 
as  it  is  fraught  with  evil  for  the  people. 

DELIVER  OUR   SERVANTS  FROM  TEMPTATIOX. 

As  things  are  now,  whenever  the  people  may  de- 
mand the  enactment  of  legislation  that  some  corporate 
interests,  that  have  fattened  on  the  enjoyment  of  spe- 
cial privileges,  may  look  upon  as  inimical  to  them, 
the  people's  chosen  legislators,  who  have  the  sole 
power  to  pass  such  legislation,  will  be  subjected  to 
great  temptation.  For  if  the  corporate  interests  can 
buy  such  legislators  they  can  defeat  the  people's  will. 
But  if  such  legislators  had  not  the  sole  power  to  pass 
legislation,  and  they  ought  not  to  have;  if  the  people 
themselves  possessed  the  power  by  petition  and  then 
direct  vote  to  enact  such  legislation   if    their    repre- 


198  THK    (iUKAT    ISSUES. 

sentatives  halted,  then  the  corporate  interests  could 
not  defeat  the  will  of  the  people  hy  corrupting  their 
representatives,  then  the  teni})tation  to  corru])t  such 
representatives  would  largely  cease,  then  such  repre- 
sentatives would  be  freer  than  now,  more  worthy  pub- 
lic servants. 

Again,  as  things  are  now,  whenever  corporate  or 
other  interests  may  seek  some  grant  of  power,  some 
valuable  privilege  that  in  the  interest  of  the  public 
ought  not  to  be  given  away  but  which  it  is  in  the  ab- 
solute power  of  the  peoi)le.s'  Icgislatorb^  to  give  away, 
such  legislators  will  be  subjected  to  great  temptation. 
For  by  buying  such  legislators  such  corporate  inter- 
ests can  buy  valuable  grants,  buy  special  privileges, 
buy  value.  But  if  by  petition  the  people  could  re- 
quire the  submission  of  any  act  passed  by  their  legisla- 
tors to  a  direct  vote,  and  by  a  majority  vote  then  cast 
veto  such  act,  then  by  buying  such  legislators  the  cor- 
porate interests  could  not  buy  things  of  assured  value, 
if  they  bought  such  legislators  would  likely  find  they 
had  bought  a  gold  brick,  and  such  legislators  would 
not  be  tempted  as  now. 

Further,  the  legislator  or  public  servant  who  now 
betrays  a  public  trust  reposed  in  him  is  not  subject  to 
dismissal  until  the  expiration  of  the  term  of  office  for 
which  elected — unless  indeed  by  impeachment  pro- 
ceedings, which  cannot  be  made  to  cover  all  forms  of 
betrayal  of  public  trust,  and  brought  before  a  legisla- 
tive body  likely  to  be  amenable  to  the  same  influences 
tliat  have  caused  such  public  servant  to  go  amiss.  If 
such  servants  were  subject  to  dismissal,  that  is  if  the 
people  could  vote  them  out  of  office  as  they  vote  them 
in,  such  servants  would  be  like  to  think  more  of  re- 
taining the  good  will  of  the  people  than  of  such  re- 
\\nrds,  blandishments,  bribes  as  the  corporate  interests 
and  others  may  offer  to  them  for  a  betrayal  of  the 


OUR  PLATFOR^f.  19!) 

trust  reposed  in  them.  For  in  such  case  they  conhl 
not  long  retain  office  without  retaining  the  good  will 
of  the  people;  now  they  can — can  serve  the  corporate 
interests  regardless  of  public  protest.  And  so  are 
they  often  strongly  tempted  to  do  so  hoping  such  pro- 
test will  blow  over  before  election  day,  bef(H'e  the  oj)- 
portunity  is  offered  to  the  public  to  vote  them  out  of 
office.  I 

So  does  the  People's  party  give  the  demand  for  di- 
rect legislation,  for  the  initiative,  referendum  and  im- 
perative mandate  first  place  in  its  platform.  It  does 
tliis  mindful  of  the  mandate  to  remove  temptation 
from  the  paths  of  our  servants,  mindful  of  the  truth 
that  with  temptations  removed  our  servants  would  Ije 
truer  servants.  It  does  this  because  with  the  people 
given  power  to  do  for  themselves,  by  petition  and  di- 
]'ect  vote,  what  their  chosen  legislators  may  refuse  to 
do  for  them,  and  to  veto,  in  the  same  way,  acts  that 
their  legislators  may  pass  counter  to  their  wishes,  we 
will  have  a  true  people's  government  in  which  the  will 
of  the  people  will  be  law;  and  1)ecause  from  such  a  gov- 
ernment will  emanate  a  rule  of  justice  and  love.  x\nd 
that  such  a  rule  would  emanate  from  such  a  govern- 
ment the  People's  party  does  not  doubt.  It  has  faith 
in  the  inherent  uprightness  of  the  people,  and  it  recog- 
nizes that  self-interest  must  impel  the  people  acting  as 
a  whole  to  an  upright  course,  for  only  by  a  course  of 
uprightness  can  the  whole  people  prosper;  other  course 
must  work  them  injury. 

TRUST  YE  AND  LOVE  YE  ONE  ANOTHER. 

So  the  People's  party  puts  trust  in  the  people,  makes 
this  its  cardinal  tenet.  It  believes  the  time  has  come 
lor  the  observance  of  this  mandate:  Trust  ye  and  love 
ye  one  another.  It  believes  that  men  can  afford  to 
observe  this  mandate.     Ayo,  it  proclaims  that  the  peo- 


300  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

pie  cannot  afford  not  to  observe  this  mandate,  that 
the  government  that  will  result  in  the  upliftment  of 
mankind  must  be  founded  on  this  mandate,  that  a  gov- 
ernment of  the  whole  people  must  of  necessity  be  such 
a  government.  Thus  its  platform  opens  with  a  de- 
mand for  the  establishment  of  such  a  government,  a 
government  in  which  the  will  of  the  people  shall  be 
done.  Thus  it  is  that  its  platform  rings  with  the  note: 
trust  the  people  and  justice  will  be  done,  evil  ban- 
ished. 

It  holds  that  the  judgment  of  the  people  as  to  what 
is  right  and  what  is  best  can  be  depended  upon.  It 
proclaims  its  faith  that  what  the  people  judge  it  right 
to  do  ought  to  be  done.  It  believes  the  voice  of  the 
people  is  as  infallible  as  any  earthly  thing  can  be,  aye, 
it  is  ready  to  recognize  in  that  voice  the  voice  of  God. 
We  demand  the  public  ownership  and  operation  of 
such  means  of  communication,  distribution  and  pro- 
duction as  the  people  may  elect,  reads  its  platform.  It 
believes  in  the  government  ownership  of  our  railroads 
as  demanded  to  put  an  end  to  the  gross  abuses  gath- 
ered around  the  manipulation  of  transportation  rates, 
the  doctoring  of  reports  and  the  watering  of  capital 
with  a  view  to  despoiling  producers  and  fleecing  in- 
vestors, and  does  not  doubt  that  as  between  private 
and  public  ownership  the  people  would  elect  for  the 
latter  if  given  the  chance.  And  so  also  as  to  tele- 
graphs, telephones,  monopolies  resting  on  public  fran- 
chises and  public  utilities  in  general.  Let  the  people 
rule,  give  them  power  so  that  their  representatives 
cannot  thwart  their  will,  and  the  People's  party  be- 
lieves that  injustice  bound  up  with  our  transportation 
system,  our  monetary  system  and  our  system  of  taxa- 
tion will  cease  to  be  longer  tolerated  or  permitted  to 
exist,  that  a  transportation  system  in  the  hands  of  the 
government,  that  will   render  justice  to  all.   will   re- 


OUK    PLATFORM.  201 

place  the  system  under  which  equality  to  shippers  in 
the  granting  of  rates  has  been  an  unknown  thing  and 
trusts  have  been  bred,  that  a  just  monetary  system 
M'ill  be  reared  in  the  place  of  the  unjust  system  that  we 
have,  that  an  equitable  system  of  taxation  will  take 
the  place  of  the  present  inequitable  one. 

REFORM  OF  OUR  RAILROAD  SYSTEM. 

Our  railroad  system  has  been  used  as  a  great  engine 
of  despoilment  as  well  as  of  distribution,  and  the  same 
can  be  justly  said  of  our  monetary  system.  Those  who 
now  enter  into  business  cannot  be  sure  that  they  will 
be  granted  as  low  transportation  rates,  both  in  the  as- 
sembling of  their  raw  materials  and  in  the  distribution 
of  the  finished  products,  as  their  competitors  in  the 
same  locality  or  competitors  in  other  localities.  And 
if  they  do  not  get  as  low  rates  they  are  placed  under 
a  handicap,  a  handicap  that  must  be  crushing  where 
there  is  great  weight  of  materials  to  be  transported 
and  freight  payments  cut  a  large  figure.  Thus  by  a 
regulation  of  freight  rates  the  railroads  can  and  do 
crush  out  industries.  And  in  the  natural  order  of 
things  they  crush  out  those  industries  that  do  not  in 
one  shape  or  another  pay  tribute  to  those  who  manage 
the  railroads;  crush  out  industries  in  the  interest  of 
those  in  which  the  men  controlling  the  fixing  of  freight 
rates  have  a  direct  or  indirect  stake.  The  result  is 
that  we  have  a  fixing  of  transportation  rates  in  a  way 
that  tends  to  create  monopolies,  centralize  industries, 
so  breed  trusts. 

Further,  we  not  only  have  a  crushing  out  by  the  rail- 
roads of  enterprises  that  are  competitive  with  others 
in  which  railroad  managers,  or  rather  those  control- 
ling the  policy  of  railroads  have  an  interest  in  seeing 
prosper,  but  we  have  whole  localities  put  under  crush- 
ing handicaps,  such  as  often  rudely  stop  their  growth, 


203  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

cause  depreciation  of  property,  demoralize  values.  And 
such  demoralization,  thus  caused,  offers  splendid  op- 
portunities for  those  controlling  the  policy  of  rail- 
roads to  pick  up  properties  at  bargain  prices  and  make 
handsome  profits.  For  such  bargains  picked  up  those 
controlling  the  policy  of  railroads  have  an  interest  in 
seeing  the  locality  in  which  such  are  situated  prosper, 
and  they  have  it  in  their  power  to  give  value  to  such 
bargains.  They  have  merely  to  re-arrange  freight 
rates  with  this  in  view. 

As  a  result  of  such  manipulation  the  interests  of 
some  railroads  may  suffer,  indeed  are  likely  to  suffer. 
We  might  add  that  in  many  cases  they  are  intended 
to  suffer,  though  when  this  is  the  case  we  may  be  sure 
that  the  prime  manipulators  have  ceased  to  be  inter- 
ested as  holders  of  the  junior  securities  of  such  roads, 
and  are  in  position  to  profit  from  those  railroads  pass- 
ing through  the  bankruptcy  and  re-organization  mill. 

Further,  we  have  had  in  this  country  a  general  over- 
capitalization of  railroads  with  the  double  purpose  of 
deceiving  the  public  as  to  the  rate  of  interest  earned 
and  paid  on  the  capital  invested  in  railroads,  making 
it  appear  much  smaller  than  it  really  is,  and,  second, 
of  fleecing  investors.  And  to  the  end  of  fleecing  in- 
vestors railroad  accounts  have,  in  many  cases,  been 
shamefully  kept — kept  so  as  to  hide  the  true  condi- 
tions and  lead  the  investing  public  astray.  Thus 
moneys  expended  in  keeping  up  the  permanent  way  and 
rolling  stock,  moneys  not  spent  in  adding  to  the  value 
of  the  property,  but  merely  in  keeping  up  the  value  of 
the  property,  and  that  should  be  charged  to  expense  ac- 
count, and  against  earnings,  have  been  charged  to  capi- 
tal account,  thus  making  the  apparent  operating  ex- 
penses small,  the  net  profits,  applicable  to  payment  of 
interest  and  dividends  on  capital,  large.  Indeed  this  has 
been  a  rather  common  practice  where  the  immediate 


OUR    PLATFORM.  203 

aim  has  been  to  work  oft'  watered  capital  on  the  public, 
lead  investors  to  part  with  good  money  for  next  to  val- 
ueless securities.  Sucli  accounting,  the  resulting  figur- 
ing out  of  large  earnings,  and  the  making  of  large  divi- 
dends reported  as  earned  but  really  paid  out  of  capital, 
can  of  course  but  lead  to  disaster  to  the  road  in  the 
end.  But  if,  misleading  the  public,  it  causes  invest- 
ors to  buy  the  securities  on  the  basis  of  the  reported 
earnings,  makes  a  market  for  such  securities  of  but 
fictitious  value  at  inflated  prices,  and  so  enables  the 
manipulators  to  reap  the  profits  of  over-capitalization, 
exchange  watered  capital,  costing  them  nothing,  for 
gold,  it  will  have  served  its  purpose. 

Thus  have  our  railroads  been  used  to  despoil  pro- 
ducers, build  up  trusts,  fleece  investors.  Such  are 
some  of  the  intolerable  abuses  that  have  grown  up 
around  our  railroad  system,  such  are  some  of  the  ways 
in  which  our  railroads  have  been  used  as  engines  of 
despoilment.  And  while  they  remain  in  private  hands 
they  will  continue  to  be  so  used,  for  those  in  control 
will  of  necessity  be  subjected  to  temptation,  for  they 
cannot  fail  to  see  how  the  railroads  can  be  used  to  pro- 
mote their  private  ends,  and  temptation  leads  men 
astray.  Put  the  railroads  in  the  hands  of  the  govern- 
ment, beyond  the  control  of  those  who  have  an  inter- 
est and  therefore  are  tempted  to  use  them  for  private 
ends,  and  then  such  abuses  will  be  put  an  end  to,  our 
railroad  system  cease  to  be  an  engine  of  despoilment, 
remain  solely  an  engine  of  distribution,  become  an 
ejigine  serving  the  general  public,  not  without  equity, 
not  with  gross  preferences,  and  scattering  evil  in  its 
wake  as  now,  but  with  absolute  fairness  and  justness. 
It  is  this  the  People's  party  sees  as  the  fruit  of  railroad 
nationalization,  it  holds  that  nationalization  would 
bring  us  riddance  from  the  intolerable  abuses  that  have 
grown  up  with  and  are  'oseparable  from  our  privately 


I&04  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

managed  railroad  system,  it  is  for  this  reason  that  it 
stands  for  government  ownersliip.  And  in  this  it  l)e- 
lieves  the  masses  of  the  people  will  stand  with  it  for 
the  mass  of  the  people  believe  in  equity,  and  private 
management  of  our  railroads  means  our  people  shall 
not  have  equal  service,  government  ownership  means 
that  they  shall;  private  management  means  that  dis- 
criminations between  shippers  shall  continue  as  at 
present  and  in  the  past,  government  ownership  that 
there  shall  be  none. 

OF  OUR  MONETARY  SYSTEM 

And  as  the  People's  party  demands  the  nationaliza- 
tion of  our  railroads  does  it  demand  the  nationaliza- 
tion of  our  monetary  system  and  upon  a  paper  basis. 
It  demands  it  in  the  name  of  justice;  that  our  mone- 
tary system,  so  effective  as  an  engine  of  despoilment, 
may  give  way  to  a  monetary  system  which  will  serve 
only  as  an  engine  of  distribution.  And  with  its  fluc- 
tuating unit  of  value  our  monetary  system  has  long 
been  made  use  of  to  despoil.  Back  in  the  Civil  War 
the  nation  borrowed  much  money  and  ran  much  into 
debt.  It  ran  into  debt  when  money  was  plentiful, 
prices  high.  Indeed,  money  had  a  much  different  value 
then  than  in  the  years  just  before  or  after.  Money 
was  cheap  and  the  products  of  labor  dear.  In  the  last 
years  of  the  war,  when  money  was  plentiful  and  prices 
high,  when  the  government  was  getting  deepest  into 
debt,  industry  was  active,  the  earning  power  of  labor 
measured  in  dollars  and  cents  large,  the  payment  of 
debts  easy.  Labor  was  in  demand  and  held  in  growing 
esteem.  But  the  nation  deep  into  debt  and  the  coun- 
try doing  business  on  this  basis  of  high  prices,  the 
commercial  death  rate  lower  than  ever  before  or  since, 
the  war  over  and  the  demand  for  money  increased  by 


OUR    PLATFORM.  205 

the  bringing  of  the  Southern  States  back  into  the 
I'liion,  Lincoln,  the  guardian  of  the  people's  interests, 
assassinated  and  stilled  in  death,  his  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  chosen  as  a  friend  of  the  greenl)ack  cur- 
rency, turned  to  Wall  Street,  took  his  cue  therefi'om, 
inaugurated  a  policy  of  violent  contraction.  As  a  re- 
sult money  doubled  in  value  and  prices  fell  by  onc- 
half.  Of  necessity  the  burden  of  all  debts,  public  and  ' 
private,  was  doubled,  as  with  the  fall  in  prices  it  took 
double  the  quantity  of  produce  to  pay  them  as  before. 
Industry  was  paralyzed,  the  commercial  death-rate 
jumped  up  alarmingly,  the  country  was  bled  for  the 
profits  of  the  holders  of  its  debts,  and  of  other  fund- 
holders  whose  debtors  were  strong  enough  to  stand  up 
under  the  increased  stram.  In  response  to  popular  out- 
cry Congress  halted  the  contraction  inaugurated  by 
McCulloeh.  But  it  was  not  long  before  a  second  step, 
finally  resulting  in  a  further  doubling  of  the  value  of 
money  and  a  further  halving  of  prices,  was  taken.  Sil- 
ver was  demonetized.  Cold  was  made  our  standard. 
And  step  by  step  money  grew  dearer  and  the  products 
of  labor  cheaper  until  very  recently,  when  the  greatly 
increased  outpourings  of  new  gold,  outpourings  trebled 
within  a  decade,  began  to  relieve  the  strained  situa- 
tion. Before  such  outpourings  made  themselves  felt 
we  had  a  unit  of  value  that  as  compared  to  the  unit  of 
Civil  War  time  bad  been  quadrupled. 

Thus  was  our  monetary  system  made  an  engine  of 
despoilment.  The  People's  party  has  ever  entered  its 
protest  against  such  monetary  system,  ever  denounced 
it.  And  ever  will  it,  so  long  as  it  stands  for  justice 
and  is  true  to  itself,  denounce  a  monetary  system  in 
which  the  unit  of  value  is  a  fluctuating  one;  ever  will 
it  stand  for  a  system  in  which  the  unit  ^nll  be  stable. 
And  as  standing  for  such  a  system,  as  not  blind  to  the 


206  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

teachings  of  common  sense  or  ignorant  of  the  mone- 
tary history  of  the  world  it  realized  that  two  commodi- 
ties such  as  gold  and  silver  united  are  likely  to  make  a 
standard  of  less  fluctuating  value  than  a  standard 
based  on  either  alone,  it  has  stood  and  still  stands  for 
the  free  coinage  of  silver,  not  as  a  solution  of  the  mone- 
tary question,  but  as  a  mere  temporary  step  looking  to 
the  betterment  of  the  situation.  For  it  realizes  that 
a  money  system  resting  on  gold  and  silver,  a  system  in 
wliich  the  volume  of  money  must  necessarily  be  de- 
pendent upon  the  supply  of  the  precious  metals,  must 
be  lacking  in  stability.  It  realizes  that  the  unit  of 
value  under  such  a  system  must  be  a  fluctuating  one, 
it  recognizes  that  the  value  of  money  must  change 
with  any  change  in  the  relation  between  the  supply  of 
and  demand  for  money,  it  sees  therefore  that  the  only 
money  that  can  be  kept  of  stable  value  is  one  the  vol- 
ume of  which  can  be  increased  by  government  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  growing  demands  of  trade.  And 
this  necessitates  that  the  money  be  made  of  a  sub- 
stance the  supply  of  which  is  not  restricted.  Further, 
as  the  value  of  money  is  dependent  on  its  quantity  not 
its  quality,  it  is  economy  to  make  our  money  out  of 
the  cheapest  possible  substance  that  will  serve  the 
purpose.  And  that  substance  is  paper.  Thus  it  is 
that  the  People's  party  stands  for  paper  money,  for  a 
currency  the  volume  and  hence  the  value  of  which 
can  be  absolutely  regulated  by  the  government,  a  cur- 
rency that  may  be  issued  directly  to  the  people  in  pay- 
ment for  public  works,  that  may  be  redeemed  and  re- 
tired out  of  the  revenues  of  such  public  works  and  re- 
issued for  the  creation  of  new  works  of  earning  power, 
a  continual  cycle  being  thus  kept  up  and  the  nation 
ever  growing  richer  in  public  works  while  the  country 
would  be  supplied  with  the  best  of  currencies. 


OUR    PLATFORM.  207 

OP  OUB  SYSTEM  OF  TAXATION. 

We  have  skipped  over  the  land  plank  of  our  plat- 
form, but  it  is  not  that  we  have  forgotten  it,  much 
less  that  we  would  ignore  it.  Bather  would  we  empha- 
size it  and  make  it  more  definite,  but  we  must  defer 
speaking  of  it  to  another  time.  So  also  will  we  pass 
the  demand  for  the  election  of  President,  Vice-Presi- 
dent, Federal  Judges  and  United  States  Senators  by 
direct  vote  of  the  people.  AVe  will  linger  at  this  time 
but  to  say  a  word  about  taxation.  We  have  had  a  sys- 
tem of  Federal  Taxation  that  has  not  fallen  equitably 
upon  our  people,  that  has  exempted  the  rich  from  a 
large  share  of  their  just  burden,  that  has  put  upon  the 
shoulders  of  our  poorer  citizens  an  undue  share  of  the 
costs  of  our  government  and  so  tended  to  further  the 
centralization  of  wealth  in  the  hands  of  the  few.  Our 
national  revenues  have  been  largely  derived  from  taxes, 
customs  and  imposts,  on  articles  of  very  general  con- 
sumption, articles  consumed  almost  as  largely  by  the 
poor  as  the  rich.  As  a  consequence  we  have  taxed  the 
dollar  of  the  poor  man  much  more  heavily  than  the 
dollar  of  the  rich.  And  this  is  not  fair.  We  have 
taxed  the  man  and  not  the  dollar.  This  should  be  re- 
formed. We  should  tax  the  dollar  and  not  the  man. 
Justice  demands  this,  it  is  for  this  principle  of  taxa- 
tion that  the  People's  party  stands. 

For  justice  is  what  the  People's  party  stands  for, 
justice  in  our  system  of  taxation,  in  our  monetary  sys- 
tem and  in  our  transportation  system  alike.  Indeed, 
its  mission  is  to  make  war  on  injustice,  to  war  for  jus- 
tice. It  stands  for  a  rule  of  justice  and  love  on  earth 
as  opposed  to  a  rule  of  greed.  And,  finally,  standing 
for  this,  it  stands  for  a  people's  government,  fnr  it 
knows  that  such  a  government  will  institute  on  earth 
a  rule  of  justice,  of  love,  strive  ever  for  the  upliftment 
of  mankind. 


WHARTON  BARKER'S  LETTER  OF  ACCEPT- 
ANCE. 

SPEAKS    OF    DIRECT    LEGISLATION    AS    THE    FIRST    OF     REFORMS; 

POINTS    OUT    THE    DANGERS    THAT    BESET    THIS    REPUBLIC; 

DEFINES    HIS    POSITION    ON    RAILROADS,    MONEY,   TRUSTS, 

TAXATION    AND    TIIADK    EXPANSION  ;      DECLARES    FOR 

COMPULSORY   ARBITRATION   OF  LABOR  DISPUTES, 

IN    FAVOR  OF    PHILIPPINE    INDEPENDENCE, 

FOR  AN  AMERICAN  ZOLLVEREIN  AND  AN 

AMERICAN   FOREIGN  POLICY. 


Letter  of  Notification. 
Hon.  Wharton  Barker,  Philadelphia,  Pa.: 

Dear  Sir:  The  undersigned,  appointed  by  the  Peo- 
ple's Party  National  Convention  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 
May  10th,  as  a  committee  to  notify  you  of  your  nomi- 
nation by  that  body  as  the  candidate  of  the  People's 
Party  for  President  of  the  United  States,  take  great 
pleasure  in  giving  you  this  formal  notification,  and 
hope  that  you  will  accept  the  trust  reposed  in  you  by 
the  representatives  of  the  Populist  masses  of  our  coun- 
try, as  their  leader  in  this  great  campaign  against  the 
plutocracy  for  the  restoration  of  the  lost  rights  of  the 
people. 

With  our  personal  regards,  we  beg  to  remain. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

M.  W.  Howard, 
J.  M.  Mallett, 
>  W.  S.  Morgan. 

May  15th,  1900. 


letter  of  acceptance.  209 

Letter  of  Acceptance. 

Messrs.  M.  W.  Howard,  J.  M.  Mallett  and  W.  S.  Mor- 
gan, Members  Committee  of  Notification: 

Gentlemen:  As  it  is  my  duty  so  it  is  my  pleasure  to 
accept  the  nomination  tendered  me  by  the  People's 
Party  National  Convention,  and  in  so  doing  1  assure 
you,  gentlemen,  that,  standing  upon  the  platform 
adopted  at  Cincinnati,  my  unceasing  etfort  will  be  to 
so  comport  myself  during  this  campaign,  and  so  act 
if  elected  President  that  I  may  not  be  judged  un- 
worthy of  the  trust  reposed  in  me.  And,  as  is  meet,  I 
make  this  an  occasion  to  declare  my  beliefs,  my  aims, 
my  purposes,  without  reservation  and  with  such  ex- 
plicitness  as  I  may.  For  it  is  not  only  eminently  fit- 
ting, but  it  is  the  duty  of  a  candidate  for  the  Presi- 
dency to  present  his  views  on  questions  of  public  con- 
cern in  such  shape  that  the  great  public  whose  suffrages 
he  seeks  may  be  able  to  learn  beyond  question  what 
views  he  entertains,  what  policies  if  entrusted  with 
office  he  would  lend  himself  to  carrying  out  and  so 
judge  for  themselves,  not  in  blindness,  but  with  full 
understanding,  of  what  he  represents,  of  his  claims  for 
their  suffrages.  So  do  I  present  this  exposition  of  my 
political  faith,  sure  that  Populists  hold  it  in  common 
with  me,  sure  that  it  will  find  acceptance  with  the 
great  body  of  the  American  people,  sure  that  when  it 
does  this  will  be  a  better  and  happier  land  to  live  in. 
For  the  measures  we  urge  are  conceived  with  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  on  this  earth  a  mlc  of  justice  and 
love  in  place  of  a  rule  of  greed,  conceived  in  the  spirit 
breathed  by  Him  who  preached  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  conceived  in  the  spirit  on  which  democracy  is 
founded,  may  be  measured  by  the  test  of  brotherhood, 
of  justice,  of  fairness  and  not  be  found  wanting.  If 
it  can  be  proven  that  anything  we  advocate  does  not 


210  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

stand  this  test  we  will  abandon  its  advocacy;  anything 
proposed  to  better  the  lot  of  mankind,  tried  by  this 
test  and  not  found  wanting  we  will  not  hesitate  to  ad- 
vocate. For  we  stand  for  earnest  and  sincere  devo- 
tion for  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  Brotherhood 
of  Man,  in  real  spirit  and  truth,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  great  mandate:  "  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  His  righteousness." 

And  now  to  come  to  that  explicit  and  direct  declara- 
tion of  my  views  that  is  demanded  by  the  occasion,  of 
views  so  equally  shared  and  upheld  by  Populists  that 
T  feel  that  one  great  heart-beat  common  to  us  all  must 
be  the  impulse  to  their  advocacy,  views  so  held  in  com- 
mon that  is  is  only  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  truth 
that  in  now  addressing  the  American  public  I  should 
speak  of  them  as  our  views,  rather  than  as  my  views, 
impersonally  rather  than  personally,  I  proclaim  this 
declaration  of  Populist  faith,  which  is  my  faith: 

DIRECT   LEGISLATION. 

That  our  democracy  may  be  a  democracy  in  fact  as 
well  as  in  name  we  hold  that  the  principles  of  direct 
legislation,  the  initiative  and  referendum,  must  be  ex- 
tended in  our  system  of  government  and  in  party  man- 
agement to  the  end  that  the  people  shall  he  able  to 
govern  themselves,  veto  the  acts  of  their  representa- 
tives who  may  prove  unfaithful  to  their  trust,  become 
their  own  legislators  if  their  representatives  refuse  to 
obey  their  commands,  carry  out  their  will.  Thus 
would  the  people  ever  hold  the  supreme  power  in  their 
own  hands,  thus  would  they  hold  a  decisive  check  over 
their  servants,  thus  would  they  put  those  servants  in 
great  measure  beyond  the  reach  of  temptation  by  put- 
ting it  beyond  the  power  of  those  servants  to  sell  out 
the  interests  of  their  masters,  thus  would  a  govern- 


LETTER    OF    ACCEPTANCE.  211 

ment  of,  by  and  for  the  people  Ijecome  a  fact  on  earth, 
thus  would  the  power  of  corrupt  bosses  be  destroyed. 

This  demand  we  have  placed  foremost  as  the  funda- 
mental step  to  the  preservation  of  our  endangered  lib- 
erties and  the  regaining  of  our  rights,  for  we  must 
make  the  vote  of  the  citizen  superior  to  the  will  of  the 
representative,  so  destroy  the  power  of  the  corruption- 
ist  to  steal  the  peoples'  rights  by  corrupting  their  repre- 
sentatives, ere  the  fruits  of  victory,  when  the  people 
triumph  over  the  hireling  and  deceived  hosts  of  plu- 
tocracy, can  be  adequately  safeguarded.  The  system 
of  direct  legislation  adopted  would  remove  our  legisla- 
tors from  temptation  and  raise  barriers  to  the  arts  of 
the  lobbyist.  Unless  we  raise  these  barriers  we  will 
have  no  certainty  when  victory  crowns  the  people's 
banners,  when  a  majority  vote  for  the  reforms  we  advo- 
cate, that  the  fruits  of  victory  will  not  be  stolen  from 
us  by  the  acts  of  our  legislators,  subjected  to  tempta- 
tion, and  proving  recreant  to  their  trust. 

THE  CONCENTRATION  OF  WEALTH. 

We  see  in  this  nation,  dedicated  to  the  working  out 
on  earth  and  in  human  government  of  the  principles 
of  the  Brotherhood  of  Alan,  a  vast  concentration  of 
wealth  in  the  hands  of  those  who  bend  their  energies 
to  despoiling  their  fellow-men.  We  see  a  rule  of 
selfishness  and  greed  supplanting  a  rule  of  love  and 
brotherhood,  we  see  money  exalted  above  man.  We 
see  a  vast  production  of  wealth  and  a  few  who  toil  not, 
save  to  despoil,  gathering  a  greater  and  greater  share 
of  that  which  is  produced.  Actually  the  toiler  may 
reap  more  than  a  score  of  years  ago;  relatively  to  that 
which  his  labor  produces  he  reaps  less.  For  the  specu- 
lative cliques  who  wax  fat  by  living  upon  others  are 
managing  to  reap  a  larger  share.  And  so  we  have  an 
ever-widening  gulf  separating  the  few  from  the  many. 


212  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

have  an  evor-widening  separation  of  our  people  into 
a  House-of-IIavc  and  a  irouse-of-Want  —  have  that 
growing  contrast  of  riches  and  poverty,  that  growth 
of  an  oligarchy  out  of  touch,  out  of  sympathy  with  the 
people,  that  is  the  entering  wedge  destructive  of 
democratic  government. 

FINANCE   AND   TRANSPORTATION. 

It  is  chiefly  through  the  instrumentality  of  our 
banks  that  give  to  the  speculative  cliques  a  certain 
control  over  the  value  of  money  and  enable  them  to 
command  general  fluctuations  of  prices,  and  through 
the  instrumentality  of  our  railroads  by  which  they 
confer  prosperity  and  adversity  when  and  where  they 
see  fit,  building  up  enterprises  and  destroying  enter- 
prises, causing  one  locality  to  flourish  and  another  to 
languish,  one  to  be  thrilled  with  activity,  one  to  be 
chilled  with  stagnation,  that  said  cliques  operate.  If 
we  w^ould  then  take  away  their  power  to  despoil  we 
must  loosen  their  grasp  upon  the  instruments  through 
which  they  act,  we  must  establish  a  monetary  system 
and  a  transportation  system  that  they  cannot  monopo- 
lize, cannot  grasp  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others;  sys- 
tems that  will  serve  not  peculiarly  the  speculative 
cliques  but  equally  all  the  people. 

So  do  we  proclaim  that  there  are  two  great  domestic 
questions  of  infinite  concern  to  the  material  interests 
and  moral  welfare  of  our  people  that  press  for  solu- 
tion, (1)  the  money  question,  and  (2)  the  railroad 
question,  which  involves  the  trust  question.  And 
these  questions  we  would  solve  by  the  issue  of  paper 
money  by  the  government  irredeemable  in  coin  and 
by  the  nationalization  of  the  railroads.  We  know  that 
the  Democratic  and  Eepublican  parties  do  not  advo- 
cate these  measures.  We  know  that  they  stand  in  the 
way  of  solving  these  questions  and  we  cannot  prosti- 


LETTER    OF    ACCEPTANCE.  213 

tute  our  principles  by  supporting  the  candidates  of 
either  of  such  parties.  ^Yhile  we  believe  in  the  free 
coinage  of  silver  along  with  gold  as  a  temporary 
measure,  holding  that  a  dollar  based  on  the  two  metals 
is  more  likely  to  Ijo  stable  than  a  dollar  based  on  one, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Populist  does  not 
want  a  gold  dollar,  nor  a  silver  dollar,  but  a  paper  dol- 
lar that  will  be  an  honest  dollar,  something  that  gokl 
and  silver  dollars,  the  volume  of  which  cannot  be  regu- 
lated at  will  by  the  government  and  in  response  to  the 
demands  of  trade,  cannot  be;  and  he  does  not  want 
the  railroads  to  continue  to  be  operated  by  corpora- 
tions as  preferential  carriers  but  by  the  government  as 
common  carriers. 

MONEY. 

Our  money  has  not  maintained  a  stable  value,  but 
has  fluctuated  constantly  to  the  loss  of  producers  and 
profit  of  speculators.  We  have  a  monetary  barome- 
ter, to  take  license  with  a  word,  in  which  the  mercury, 
the  measure  of  values,  has  not  kept  the  same  height  in 
the  tube.  For  a  quarter  of  a  century  prior  to  mid- 
summer three  years  ago  it  crawled  higher  and  higher, 
with  slight  drops  now  and  then,  until  it  was  a  hundi'ed 
per  cent,  higher  at  the  end  than  at  the  beginning  of 
the  period.  So  debt  ])urdened  producers  sweat  more 
and  more.  During  the  last  two  years  the  value  of 
gold,  as  shown  by  the  price  barometer,  has  shrunk  by 
twenty-five  per  cent.  And  now  the  speculative  cliques, 
in  place  of  this  gold  barometer  by  which  to  measure 
the  value  of  property,  demand  a  bank  currency  barome- 
ter on  which  they  may  blow  hot  and  cold  by  turns. 

We  proclaim  that  it  matters  not  to  the  peoj)lc 
whether  this  currency  barometer  is  based  on  national 
bank  notes — Republican  plan — or  on  state  bank  notes 
— Democratic  plan.     The  question  is  shall  we  go  back- 


214  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

ward  or  forward,  shall  we  establish  a  monetary  system 
less  honest  than  gold,  more  injurious  to  the  producing 
classes,  more  to  the  profit  of  the  speculative  cliques 
bent  on  despoiling  the  wealth  producers,  or  shall  we 
establish  a  system  more  honest,  that  will  do  Justice  by 
the  producing  classes,  by  all  classes,  and  stop  the  rob- 
bery of  some  men  by  others  through  the  instrumental- 
ity of  our  banking  and  monetary  system? 

The  speculative  cliques  want  a  currency  that  by  ex- 
pansion and  contraction  they  can  make  cheap  and  dear 
and  prices  high  and  low  by  turns.  The  people  want  a 
currency  that  will  expand  with  their  needs,  which  will 
grow  neither  cheap  nor  dear,  but  maintain  a  stable 
value,  thereby  securing  the  equities  of  debtors  and 
creditors  and  placing  business  upon  firm  foundations, 
free  from  the  ups  and  downs  in  prices  over  which  men 
not  in  the  cliques  have  no  control  and  against  which 
no  business  foresight  can  guard,  yet  which  may  strip 
them  in  almost  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  of  the  profits 
of  a  year,  of  the  savings  of  a  lifetime,  throw  them  from 
hope  into  despondency,  cut  off  the  promise  of  success, 
open  the  way  to  bankruptcy. 

This  currency  that  will  maintain  a  stable  value  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  government  to  give.  It  is  its  duty 
to  regulate  the  volume  of  money  in  a  way  to  accom- 
plish this.  The  amount  of  money  needed  to  accom- 
plish this,  the  times  when  more  money  must  be  issued 
to  preserve  the  stability,  the  times  when  smaller  issues 
are  required  can  readily  be  ascertained.  We  have  in 
the  general  level  of  prices  our  guide,  our  currency 
barometer.  The  mercury  in  that  barometer,  the  gen- 
eral index  number,  should  always  register  the  same. 
So. long  as  it  registers  the  same  it  means  that  prices 
are  stable,  that  the  purchasing  power  of  money  is  un- 
changed, the  equities  between  debtors  and  creditors  un- 
disturbed.    If  it  falls  it  means  that  prices  are  lower, 


LETTER    OF    ACCEPTANCE.  215 

money  clearer,  the  debtor  being  despoiled  for  the 
creditor's  benefit.  It  means  that  justice  requires  the 
issue  of  more  money.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  index 
number  in  this  currency  barometer  rises  it  means  that 
prices  are  rising,  that  money  has  departed  from  the 
level  of  honesty  with  the  result  of  benefiting  the 
debtor  at  the  creditor's  expense,  and  that  in  the  name 
of  honesty,  in  the  interest  of  industry  and  business, 
the  issue  of  money  be  diminished. 

By  watching  this  currency  barometer  as  our  guid'' 
Ave  can  establish  a  perfect  monetary  system  that  will 
give  us  currency  of  practically  invariable  purchasing 
power  and  hence  honest  money,  a  money  the  volume 
and  hence  the  value  of  which  would  not  be  subject  to 
accidents  of  production  as  is  our  gold  money  to-day, 
a  money  not  subject  to  the  whim  of  banker  as  the 
speculative  cliques  desire,  or  of  legislator  as  the  un- 
friendly critics  of  Populism  assert,  but  a  money  es- 
tablished upon  rigid  lines  of  honesty. 

This  is  the  basic  principle  of  sound  and  honest 
money,  the  monetary  principle  of  Populism. 

And  now,  as  I  cannot  string  new  words  to  better 
express  my  thoughts,  I  take  two  paragraphs  from 
The  American  of  last  week:  "Back  in  the  Civil 
War  this  nation  borrowed  much  money  and  ran  much 
into  debt.  It  ran  into  debt  when  money  was  plentiful, 
prices  high.  Indeed,  money  had  a  much  different 
value  then  than  in  the  years  just  before  or  after. 
Money  was  cheap  and  the  products  of  labor  dear.  Tn 
the  last  years  of  the  war,  when  money  was  plentiful 
and  prices  high,  when  the  government  was  getting 
deepest  into  debt,  industry  was  active,  the  earning 
power  of  labor,  measured  in  dollars  and  cents,  large, 
the  payment  of  debts  comparatively  easy.  Labor  Avas 
in  demand  and  held  in  growing  esteem.  But  the  na- 
tion deep  into  debt  and  the  country  doing  business 


216  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

on  this  basis  of  high  prices,  the  commercial  death  rate 
lower  than  ever  before  or  since,  the  war  over  and  the 
demand  for  money  increased  by  the  bringing  of  the 
Southern  States  back  into  the  Union,  Lincoln,  the 
guardian  of  the  people's  interests,  assassinated  and 
stilled  in  death;  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  chosen 
as  a  friend  of  the  greenback  currency,  turned  to  Wall 
Street,  took  his  cue  therefrom,  inaugurated  a  policy  of 
violent  contraction.  As  a  result,  money  doubled  in 
value  and  prices  fell  by  one-half.  Of  necessity  the  bur- 
den of  all  debts,  public  and  private,  was  doubled,  as 
with  the  fall  in  prices  it  took  double  the  quantity  of 
produce  to  pay  them  as  before.  Industry  was  para- 
lyzed, the  commercial  death-rate  juniped  up  alarming- 
ly, the  country  was  bled  for  the  profit  of  the  holders 
of  its  debts,  and  of  other  fund-holders  whose  debtors 
wore  strong  enough  to  stand  up  under  the  increased 
strain.  In  response  to  popular  outcry  Congress  halted 
the  contraction  inaugurated  by  McCuUoch.  But  it  was 
not  long  before  a  second  step,  finally  resulting  in  a 
further  doubling  of  the  value  of  money  and  a  further 
halving  of  prices,  was  taken.  Silver  was  demonetized. 
Gold  was  made  our  standard.  And  step  by  step  money 
grew  dearer  and  the  products  of  lalior  cheaper,  until 
very  recently,  when  the  greatly-increased  outpourings 
of  new-  gold,  outpourings  trebled  within  a  decade,  be- 
gan to  relieve  the  strained  situation.  Before  such 
outpourings  made  themselves  felt  w^e  had  a  unit  of 
value  that,  as  compared  to  the  unit  of  Civil  War  time, 
had  been  quadrupled. 

"  Thus  was  our  monetary  system  made  an  engine  of 
despoilment.  The  People's  party  has  ever  entered  its 
protest  against  such  monetary  system,  ever  denounced 
it.  And  ever  will  it.  so  long  as  it  stands  for  justice 
and  is  true  to  itself,  denounce  a  monetary  system  in 
which  the  unit  of  value  is  a  fluctuating  one;  ever  wiU 


LETTEE  OF   ACCEPTANCE.  217 

it  stand  for  a  system  in  which  the  unit  will  be  stable. 
And,  as  standing  for  such  a  system,  as  not  blind  to  the 
teachings  of  common  sense  or  ignorant  of  the  mone- 
tary history  of  the  world,  it  realized  that  two  commod- 
ities, such  as  gold  and  silver,  united,  are  likely  to  make 
a  standard  of  less  fluctuating  value  than  a  standard 
based  on  either  alone,  it  has  stood,  and  still  stands 
for  the  free  coinage  of  silver,  not  as  a  solution  of  the  | 
monetary  question,  but  as  a  mere  temporary  step  look- 
ing to  the  betterment  of  the  situation,  for  it  realizes 
that  a  money  system  resting  on  gold  and  silver,  a  sys- 
tem in  which  the  volume  of  money  must  necessarily 
be  dependent  upon  the  supply  of  the  precious  metals, 
must  be  lacking  in  stability.  It  realizes  that  the  unit 
of  value  under  such  a  system  must  be  a  fluctuating  one. 
It  recognizes  that  the  value  of  money  must  change 
with  any  change  in  the  relation  between  the  supply 
of  and  demand  for  money.  It  sees,  therefore,  that  the 
only  money  that  can  be  kept  of  stable  value  is  one 
the  volume  of  which  can  be  increased  by  government 
in  accordance  with  the  growing  demand!-  of  trade.  And 
this  necessitates  that  the  money  be  made  of  a  sub- 
stance the  supply  of  which  is  not  restricted.  Further, 
as  the  value  of  money  is  dependent  on  its  quantity,  not 
its  quality,  it  is  economy  to  make  our  money  out  of 
the  cheapest  possible  substance  that  will  serve  the  pur- 
pose. And  that  substance  is  paper.  Thus  it  is  that 
the  People's  party  stands  for  paper  money,  for  a  cur- 
rency the  volume,  and  hence  the  value  of  which  can 
be  absolutely  regulated  by  the  government;  a  currency 
that  may  be  issued  directly  to  the  people  in  payment 
for  public  works,  that  may  be  redeemed  and  retired 
out  of  the  revenues  of  such  public  works,  and  re-issued 
for  the  creation  of  new  works  of  earning  power,  a 
continual  cycle  being  thus  kept  up,  and  the  nation 
ever  growing  rich  in  public  works,  while  the  country 
would  be  supplied  with  the  best  of  currencies.'* 


;>18  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

TRUSTS. 

To  talk  of  licensing  trusts  is  to  trifle  with  evil.  The 
trusts  have  come — some  as  the  product  of  industrial 
evolution,  from  the  fact  that  great  combinations  have 
made  possible  the  introduction  of  economics  in  pro- 
duction; some  as  the  product  of  special  legislation, 
largely  the  granting  of  franchises  exclusive  by  their  na- 
ture; some  as  the  result  of  railroad  discriminations  for- 
liidden  by  the  law,  but  which  the  law  has  been  power- 
less to  prevent.  And  so  arising,  the  trusts  must  be 
treated  with  some  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
have  arisen.  Those  that  have  arisen  in  the  third  way, 
in  railroad  discriminations,  can  be  dealt  with  effective- 
ly, properly,  by  the  government  taking  possession  of 
the  railroads  and  putting  an  end  to  the  evil  of  freight 
discrimination  so  destructive  of  the  first  right  of  the 
American  people:  the  right  to  an  equality  of  oppor- 
tunity. Those  that  have  arisen  in  the  second  way  can 
be  successfully  treated  only  by  the  national,  state  and 
municipal  governments  taking  back  the  public  fran- 
chises they  have  given  away  and  which  they  have  a 
common-law  right  to  do;  those  that  have  arisen  in  the 
first  way,  and  that  abuse  their  power,  the  power  that 
comes  with  concentration,  and  that  ought  to  benefit 
the  general  public,  must  be  taken  by  the  people  as  they 
see  the  necessity  and  that  they  may  enjoy  the  benefits 
of  the  industrial  evolution  going  on  around  them. 

So  do  we  declare  that,  where  trusts  and  monopolies 
are  not  the  artificial  creation  of  transportation  and 
other  discriminations,  and  that  can,  therefore,  be  de- 
stroyed by  the  removal  of  such  discriminations,  but  are 
the  growth  of  natural  conditions,  are,  and  must  con- 
tinue to  be  monopolies  because  of  the  very  nature  of 
their  being,  that  the  nation,  the  state,  the  municipal- 
ity must  be  the  monopolist  in  order  that  the  people 
may  be  protected  in  their  rights.     Where  monopoly 


LETTER   OF    ACCEPTAXCK.  219 

cannot  be  destroyed,  or  where,  being  of  natural 
growth,  it  is  not  to  the  interest  of  the  people  to  de- 
stroy it,  the  government  must  be  the  monopolist.  Pri- 
vate monopoly  must  be  a  bane,  government  monopoli- 
zation of  natural  monopolies  must  be  a  blessing. 

LA^'D. 

In  the  words  of  a  still-living  Repul)lican  statesman,  , 
Galusha  A.  Grow,  uttered  almost  half  a  century  since, 
"  If  a  man  has  a  right  on  earth,  he  has  a  right  to  hind 
enough  to  rear  a  habitation  on.  If  he  has  a  right  to 
live,  he  has  a  right  to  the  free  use  of  whatever  nature 
has  provided  for  his  sustenance — air  to  breathe,  water 
to  drink  and  land  enough  to  cultivate  for  his  subsist- 
ence. For  these  are  the  necessary  and  indispensable 
means  for  the  enjoyment  of  his  inalienable  rights  of 
life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  .  .  .  And,  as 
the  means  of  sustaining  life  are  derived  almost  entire- 
ly from  the  soil,  every  person  has  a  right  to  so  much 
of  the  earth's  surface  as  is  necessary  for  his  support. 
To  whatever  unoccupied  portion  of  it,  therefore,  he 
shall  apply  his  labor  for  that  purpose,  from  that  time 
forth  it  becomes  appropriated  to  his  own  exclusive  use, 
and  whatever  improvements  he  may  make  by  his  in- 
dustry become  his  property  and  subject  to  his  dis- 
posal. For  the  onlii  true  fonndation  of  any  right  to 
property  is  man's  labor.  That  is  property,  and  that 
alone,  which  the  labor  of  man  has  made  such.  TN'hat 
right,  then,  has  one  man  more  than  another  to  an  acre 
of  uncultivated  land  to  which  not  a  day's  nor  hour's 
labor  has  been  applied,  to  make  it  more  productive  and 
answer  to  the  end  for  which  it  was  created,  the  sup- 
port and  happiness  of  the  race?  It  is  said  by  the  great 
expounder  of  the  common  law,  in  his  commentaries, 
that  '  There  is  no  foundation  in  nature  or  natural  law 
why  a  set  of  words  upon  parchment  should  convey 


220  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

the  dominion  of  land.'  The  use  and  occupancy  alone 
gives  to  man,  in  the  language  ol'  the  coiniuentaries, 
'  an  exclusive  right  to  retain  in  a  permanent  manner 
that  specific  land  which  before  belonged  generally  to 
everybody,  but  particularly  to  nobody.' " 

So  do  I  affirm  my  belief  that  use  and  occupancy  of 
land  are  of  right  requisite  to  make  good  title,  that 
when  a  parcel  of  land  ceases  to  be  so  used  and  occu- 
pied, it  of  right  reverts  to  the  Slate,  that  the  holding 
of  lands  by  aliens,  by  non-resident  landlords,  should 
be  prohibited. 


TAXATION. 

That  men  should  contribute  to  the  costs  of  govern- 
ment in  proportion  to  their  means  we  hold  to  be  a 
self-evident  truth.  But  in  the  raising  of  the  Federal 
revenues  this  truth  has  not  been  followed.  One  per 
cent,  of  our  people  own  one-half  of  the  national 
wealth,  and,  while  they  pay  approximately  one-half 
of  the  local  taxation,  they  pay  but  an  insignifi- 
cant part  of  the  national  revenues.  For  those  rev- 
enues are  largely  raised  from  taxes  on  articles  of  gen- 
eral consumption,  articles  of  which  the  rich  consume 
no  more  than  the  poor.  As  a  consequence,  we  have 
the  dollar  of  the  poor  man  taxed  more  heavily  than 
the  dollar  of  the  rich.  Indeed,  such  taxes  on  con- 
sumption amount  to  per  capita  taxes.  AYith  such 
taxes  we  have  a  taxing  of  the  man  and  not  the  dollar. 
It  is  not  equitable;  it  is  not  fair.  We  have  the  poorer 
of  the  nation's  citizens  required  to  pay  a  larger  per- 
centage of  their  earnings  than  the  richer  citizens  are 
required  to  pay  of  their  income  from,  accumulations. 
It  is  not  right.  We  should  tax  the  dollar,  not  the  man. 
Justice  demands  this;  we  stand  for  it. 


LETTEB  OF  ACCEPTANCE.  321 

USURPATION  OF  OUR  COURTS. 

The  usurpations  of  our  courts  have  recently  been 
so  pronounced  in  the  conflicts  between  labor  and  cap- 
ital that  they  can  no  longer  be  permitted  to  pass  un- 
noticed. The  function  of  the  courts  is  to  interpret 
laws,  not  to  make  laws;  yet  we  have  seen  them  enforc- 
ing self-made  law,  seen  judges  sit  as  prosecuting  at- 
torney, judge  and  jury,  all  in  one.  Their  function  is 
judicial,  not  executive,  much  less  legislative.  The 
lesson  of  their  usurpations,  of  their  encroachments  on 
the  rights  of  the  people  is  that,  in  order  to  conserve 
our  liberties,  we  must  discontinue  the  system  of  life 
tenure  of  office,  either  elective  or  appointive,  in  our 
judiciary,  and  make  our  judges  elective  and  their  ten- 
ure of  office  short,  so  that  they  may  be  held  to  ac- 
countability by  the  people. 

ELECTION    OF   SENATORS   AND   PRESIDENT   BY 
DIRECT  VOTE. 

The  scandals  connected  with  the  election  of  United 
State  Senators  by  State  Legislatures  are  a  constant 
reminder  that  the  time  has  come  to  elect  such  Sena- 
tors by  direct  vote  of  the  people.  And  the  time  has 
certainly  come  to  abolish  the  obsolete  machinery  of 
the  Electoral  College  for  the  election  of  President 
and  Vice-President,  and  to  in  form,  as  we  do  now  in 
fact,  choose  the  chief  magistrates  of  this  nation  by 
direct  vote. 

COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF  LABOR  DISPUTES. 

And  now,  one  step  farther.  As  our  industries  have 
become  more  ramified  and  interdependent,  the  one  on 
the  other,  so  much  so  that  blockading  the  wheels  in 
one  must  injuriously  affect  others,  labor  disputes  have 
become  matters  of  growing  public  concern  with  which 
the  State  must  concern  itself.    In  the  struggles  of  the 


222  THE    GIIEAT    ISSUES. 

laboring  classes  to  better  their  condition,  our  sympa- 
thies are  with  the  poor  and  downtrodden.  Our  hearts 
beat  with  theirs  in  their  aspirations.  Hut  we  do  not 
undertake  the  task  of  defending  the  boycott  and  the 
strike.  We  Justify  the  Ijoycott  as  we  justify  the 
strike,  as  at  times  men  justify  resort  to  force  as  a  de- 
fense against  op])rcssion.  Uut  we  do  not  justify  the 
strike  as  desirable,  or  the  boycott  as  desirable,  any 
more  than  we  would  justify  war  as  desirable.  Yet,  as 
there  are  times  when  war  is  justifiable,  so  there  are 
times  when  the  strike  and  boycott  are  justifiable.  We 
can  only  say  that  such  times  should  not  come;  in  na- 
tions where  ruled  are  rulers,  they  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  come.  The  boycott,  as  the  strike,  is  an  in- 
terference with  trade,  a  check  to  industry,  to  the  ac- 
cumulation of  wealth,  to  progress.  But  so  long  as  we 
can  see  no  wrong  in  permitting  employers  to  oppress 
wage  earners,  we  have  no  right  to  see  any  wrong  in 
wage  earners  organizing  the  boycott  and  the  strike  as 
a  defense  against  such  oppression.  The  remedy  is  to 
see  wrong  in  permitting  employers  to  oppress,  to 
trample  on  the  interests  of  wage  earners.  When  we 
see  fit  to  protect  the  wage  earner  from  oppression  at 
the  hands  of  the  employer,  then  we  can  interdict  the 
boycott  and  the  strike,  rightly  make  both  illegal.  I 
stand  for  compulsory  arbitration  of  labor  disputes, 

THE    PHILIPPINES. 

I  come  now  to  express  my  views  on  some  questions 
not  touched  on  in  our  national  platform,  which  I  took 
occasion  to  speak  of  before  our  convention  prior  to  my 
nomination,  and  which  it  is  meet  that  I  should  refer  to 
now,  for  my  views  on  such  questions  the  people  have 
a  right  to  know.  I  cannot  reconcile  the  course  of  this 
nation  in  the  Philippines  with  the  rules  of  eternal  rec- 
titude our  forefathers  handed  down  to  us;  with  the 


LETTER   OF    ACCEPTANCE.  233 

great  truths  they  proclaimed  in  the  immortal  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  for  our  guidance.  1  feel  that 
our  course  in  the  Philippines  is  dictated  by  motives  of 
greed.  I  feel  that  by  our  course  there  we  are  staining 
our  Hag,  consecrated  to  the  cause  of  liberty,  not  of 
oppression,  the  cause  of  self-government,  not  of  sub- 
jugation— emblem  that  we  would  have  stand  for  right, 
not  might;  love,  not  greed.  And  T  feel  that  justice 
and  love  and  charity  for  the  failings  of  others  demand 
of  the  American  people  that  they  encourage  the  Fili- 
pinos in  their  aspirations  and  not  put  down  upon  such 
the  crushing  foot  of  might;  that  they  give  those  people 
their  independence,  help  them  to  build  up  a  republic. 

THE  MONROE   DOCTRINE. 

To  an  alliance  with  Great  Britain,  whose  ideals, 
though  unfortunately  shared  by  our  President,  are 
not  mine,  I  am  strenuously  opposed,  as  I  am  to  en- 
tangling alliances  with  any  foreign  nation.  The  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  I  would  emphasize  and  extend  so  as  to 
embrace  the  Philippines,  saying  to  monarchical 
Europe:  "Hands  off  of  the  republics  of  America  and 
the  Philippines;  they  are  under  our  protection;  we 
cannot  look  unconcernedly  upon  any  attack  on  their 
institutions,  any  interference  with  their  working  out 
their  destiny  as  republics,  and  we  in  our  turn  will  in 
future,  as  in  the  past,  scrupulously  avoid  interference 
in  European  affairs." 

AN   AjVIERICAN    ZOLLVEREIN. 

Between  Puerto  Rico  and  the  United  States,  as  be- 
tween Hawaii  and  the  United  States,  free  trade  ought 
of  right  to  be  established.  Further,  believing  tbat 
mutually  profitable  trade  must  l)e  l)etween  countries 
of  dilferent  clime  and  different  natural  resources.  ])e- 
lieving  that  the  natural  currents  of    trade    must  set 


^^4  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

along  the  meridians  of  longitude,  not  the  parallels  of 
latitude;  that  the  fostering  of  trade  on  such  lines  must 
be  advantageous;  that  free  trade  between  the  countries 
of  the  Americas  would  be  fair  trade,  I  favor,  as  I  long 
have,  the  establishment  of  an  American  ZoUverein,  a 
customs  union  embracing  all  the  Americas,  north  and 
south.  It  is  in  this  way  we  would  seek  trade  expan- 
sion, not  at  the  cannon's  mouth;  by  ways  of  peace  and 
fair  dealing,  not  of  blood  and  despoilment,  "  for  our 
hearts  go  out  to  the  wretched  and  oppressed  of  all  the 
world,  and  if  placed  in  power  in  this  country,  we  shall 
try  to  so  act  as  to  help  all  mankind." 

So,  proclaiming  my  faith,  as  standing  for  the  above 
things,  for  a  rule  of  love  on  earth,  not  of  greed;  for 
liberty,  equality,  fraternity,  the  brotherhood  of  man; 
putting  trust  in  the  Infinite,  with  firm  faith  that  the 
truth  must  in  the  end  prevail,  that  might  will  not  tri- 
umph over  right,  and  awaiting  the  issue  with  confi- 
dence, I  take  up  the  burdens  you  have  placed  upon 
me. 

With  highest  regards,  I  remain,  gentlemen. 

Very  respectfully, 

Wharton  Barker. 
Philadelphia,  June  2d,  1900. 


TAXING  THE  POOR,  EXEMPTING  THE  RICH. 

[November  26th,  1898.] 

A  GATHERING  of  rich  men  consider  the  question 
of  national  finances.  Customs  imports,  designed 
to  put  the  chief  burdens  of  government  upon  the 
shoulders  of  the  nation's  poorer  citizens,  fail  to  raise 
anticipated  revenues,  and  the  receipts  of  government 
fall  behind  expenditures.  So  the  ciuestion  of  increased 
taxation  is  presented  to  the  gathering  of  rich  men, 
who  cheerfully  answer,  and  of  one  accord,  as  if  enter- 
taining no  doubts  as  tO'  the  rightfulness  of  their  an- 
swer: "Tax  the  poor,  not  us." 

True,  these  rich  men  are  greatly  indebted  to  the 
strong  arm  of  the  government  that  it  costs  so  much 
to  uphold,  and  to  the  unbiased  observer  the  question 
presents  itself  of  why  it  is  that  if  the  rich  are  so  in- 
debted to  the  strong  arm  of  government  they  should 
not  pay  the  costs  of  upholding  it.  But  seemingly  such 
question,  that  naturally  presents  itself  to  the  man  of 
logical  reasoning  and  instincts  of  justice,  does  not  oc- 
cur to  the  gathering  of  rich  men.  At  least  they  do 
not  allow  such  questions,  questions  as  to  the  justness 
of  their  position  in  regard  to  the  imposition  of  the 
burdens  of  taxation,  to  trouble  them  or  turn  them 
fi'om  their  course. 

Surely  those  who  derive  the  greatest  benefits  under 
the  protection  of  government  should  be  the  greatest 
contributors  to  its  support.  The  chief  recipients  of 
benefits  under  government  should  be  the  chief  tax 
payers.  This,  to  the  unbiased  observer,  seems  like  a 
fair  rule  of  taxation;  but  to  the  gathering  of  rich  men, 
weighing  the  question  of  taxation,  it  does  not  aj)peal. 


226  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

To  them  the  perfect  rule  of  taxation  is  that  which  will 
relieve  them  of  the  costs  of  supporting  the  government 
under  whose  sheltering  protection  they  enjoy  a  large 
share  of  the  wealth  produced  by  the  many  and  put 
such  costs  on  the  backs  of  the  poorer  citizens.  To  so 
impose  taxes,  impose  taxes  so  that  the  protection  of 
government  enjoyed  by  the  wealthy  will  be  paid  for  by 
the  nation's  poorer  citizens,  is  a  fine  stroke  of  business 
for  the  wealthier.  To  them  it  is,  tax  the  poor,  and 
even  so  we  will  grow  richer,  for  others  will  pay  for 
that  which  we  enjoy. 

LOCAL    TAXATION.       THEORY    AND    PRACTICE. 

To  a  great  extent  have  the  nation's  wealthier  citi- 
zens brought  about  a  recognition  of  this  rule  in  na- 
tional taxation.  Now  they  want  to  carry  it  even  fur- 
ther. But  in  local  taxation  such  rule  is  not  recognized 
to  any  great  extent.  Such  taxation  is  largely  levied 
upon  property,  so  that  the  more  property  one  holds 
the  more  taxes  will  he  pay.  At  least  this  is  the  theory 
from  which  there  are  unfortunately  wide  departures 
in  practice,  and  by  which  the  wealthier  citizens  secure 
exemption  from  a  large  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxa- 
tion that  they  rightfully  should  bear.  Thus  a  great 
deal  of  property  possessed  by  the  richer  citizens  es- 
capes taxation,  and,  as  the  aggregate  of  property  thus 
subject  to  taxation  is  diminished,  of  course  the  bur- 
dens of  those  citizens  who  possess  a  kind  of  property 
that  does  not  escape  taxation  are  much  increased  be- 
yond their  share, 

,      PERSONAL  PROPERTY  TAXES  EVADED,  AND  SO 
INEQUITABLE. 

In  raising  local  taxation  the  effort  is  usually  made 
to  tax  both  real  and  personal  property.  And  to  this 
end  both  real  property,  which  may  be  defined  as  im- 


TAXIXt;    THE    POOK,    EXKilPTIXG    THE    RICH.       327 

Jiiovable  property,  and  personal  property,  which  may 
be  distiuguisliecl  as  movable,  are  assessed.  But  the 
assessing  of  personal  property,  which,  being  movable, 
can  very  often  be  hidden  from  the  eyes  of  the  assessor, 
is  a  very  difficult  matter.  Some  personal  property  is 
indeed  of  a  kind  that  cannot  be  hidden,  and  that, 
therefore,  is  duly  assessed.  But  other  personal  prop 
erty  can  be  readily  hidden,  is  hidden  from  the  eyes  of 
the  assessor,  and  does  escape  taxation.  Consequently, 
those  Avhose  wealth  consists  largely  of  such  per^^onal 
property  do  not  bear  their  full  share  of  taxation.  And 
it  follows  inversely  that  those  whose  wealth  does  not 
consist  of  such  personal  property  bear  more  than  their 
share  of  local  taxes. 

EVADED  BY  THE  RICH,  THEY  INCREASE  THE  BURDENS  OF 
THE   POOR. 

It  then  behooves  us  to  inquire  who  are  the  posses- 
sors of  the  personal  property  that  can  be  hidden  and 
escapes  appraisement,  and  who  of  the  property  that 
cannot  be  hidden,  that  is  appraised  and  does  pay  taxes. 
And  we  find  that  the  wealthier  of  our  citizens  are 
largely  the  possessors  of  the  first  kind  of  property, 
the  poorer  of  our  citizens  of  the  latter.  Thus  can 
bonds  and  stocks  and  evidences  of  debt  be  readily  hid- 
den, and  so  the  man  who  cuts  coupons,  receives  inter- 
est, collects  dividends,  largely  escapes  taxation.  But 
horses,  and  cattle,  and  swine,  and  wagons,  and  tools, 
and  household  goods  cannot  be  hidden,  and  where  tax- 
able, do  not  escape  the  eye  of  the  assessor  and  are 
taxed.  And  such  goods  largely  make  up  the  personal 
property  of  the  farmer.  And  so  it  is  that  the  personal 
pro})erty  of  the  farmer  does  not  escape  taxation,  while 
the  personal  property  of  our  wealthier  citizens  does. 
As  a  consequence,  the  farmer  pays  more  than  his  share 
of  taxation. 


228  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

It  is  indeed  true  that  much  of  the  personal  property 
of  the  farmer  is  exempted  from  taxation, in  some  States 
mucli  more  than  in  others,  but  if  all  his  personal  pro])- 
erty  was  exempted  by  law  while  the  personal  property 
of  the  bondholder  was  largely  exempted,  as  it  is  now, 
by  false  swearing,  still,  more  than  a  fair  share  of  the 
burdens  of  taxation  would  fall  upon  the  farmer.  And 
this,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  a  large  share  of  the 
wealth  of  the  farmer  consists  of  real  property,  only  a 
small  proportion  of  the  wealth  of  the  fundholding 
classes  of  real  propert3%  and  so,  clearly,  the  farniei' 
would  be  taxed  more  heavily  proportionately  to  his 
wealth  than  the  wealthier  citizen,  the  millionaire, 
whose  property  largely  consists  of  bonds  and  stocks 
and  mortgages  and  evidences  of  debt. 

INDIRECT    TAXATION    OF    THE    FUNDHOLDER. 

Now,  it  may  be  well  argued  that  bonds  and  stocks 
and  mortgages  are  not  property,  not  wealth,  but  mere- 
ly evidences  of  ownership  in  property,  in  wealth,  held 
in  other  hands,  and  that  as  such  property  is  fully 
taxed  in  other  hands,  such  tax  reduces  the  net  earn- 
ings of  such  property  and  the  return  made  to  bond- 
holder and  stockholder,  that  such  holders  of  securities 
are,  as  a  result,  indirectly,  yet  fully  taxed  through  a 
reduction  in  the  returns,  the  interest  and  dividends 
they  receive.  Thus,  a  tax  collected  from  a  railroad 
must  fall  upon  the  security  holders,  such  tax  reducing 
the  interest  they  receive.  And  the  same  may  be  said 
with  equal  truth  of  all  corporations.  Tax  them  and 
you  tax  the  holders  of  their  securities.  So,  to  first  put 
a  tax  upon  the  property  of  corporations,  and  then  upon 
the  security  holders  is  to  subject  the  latter  to  double 
taxation,  and  this  is  much  urged  as  a  reason  for  ex- 
empting the  holder  of  stocks  and  bonds  and  mortgages 
from  taxation  upon  such  personal  property,  for,  as  it 


TAXING    THE    POOR,    EXEMPTING    THE    HIGH.       2::iy 

is  said,  aud  witli  reason,  such  securities,  though  cata- 
logued as  personal  property,  are  not  property  at  all, 
Ijut  merely  certificates  of  ownership  of  property  held 
in  other  liands  and  taxed  as  real  property.  And  so  it 
is  said  that  if  our  wealthier  citizens  paid  no  direct 
taxes,  they  would  bear  their  full  share  of  the  burdens 
of  taxation. 

INEQUALITY   OF   SUCH   TAXATION   AT    FIRST. 

And,  if  the  property  held  by  corporations  was  fully 
taxed,  it  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  there  would  be  much 
reason  in  all  this.  Yet  it  is  evident  that  where  the 
property  of  a  corporation  is  represented  by  several 
classes  of  securities,  that  any  increase  in  tax  must  fall 
upon  the  class  of  securities  that  have  a  junior  lien  on 
the  earnings  of  the  corporation.  That  is  to  say,  that 
all  the  increase  would  fall  upon  the  stockholders,  none 
upon  the  bondholders.  And  in  the  case  of  a  real  es- 
tate, say  farm  mortgage,  the  holder  of  the  mortgage 
occupies  the  place  of  bondholder,  the  farmer  of  stock- 
holder. So  any  increase  in  tax  would  fall  upon  the 
farmer,  reducing  his  earnings,  but  not  the  interest 
paid  the  holder  of  the  mortgage.  And  so  would  an  in- 
crease in  railroad  taxation  fall  primarily  upon  the 
stockholders.  Indeed,  the  stockholders  would  bear  all 
of  such  increase,  unless  such  increase  was  so  great  as 
to  more  than  al)sorb  all  the  earnings  that  had  before 
been  applicable  to  the  payment  of  dividends.  Then 
the  tax  would  fall  in  part  upon  the  junior  bondhold- 
ers for  the  road  not  earning,  after  the  payment  of 
taxes,  enough  to  pay  full  interest,  such  bondholders 
would  have  to  content  themselves  with  what  the  road 
could  pay.  And  the  same  would,  of  course,  be  true  of 
farmer  and  owner  of  farm  mortgage,  if  taxes  on  farm 
were  so  increased  as  to  make  it  impossible  for  the 
farmer  to  save  enough  to  pay  the  mortgage  interest. 


230  TllK    ORE  AT    ISSUES. 

BUT   ULTIMATE   ADJUSTMENT   OF   THE    lUJKDEXR. 

But  in  the  long  run  it  is  argued  that  taxation  of  cor- 
porate or  mortgaged  property  falls  just  as  heavily 
upon  bondholder  and  mortgage  holder  as  upon  the 
owner  of  the  equity  in  the  property,  namely,  the  stock- 
holder or  farmer.  Thus,  it  is  argued  that  an  increase 
in  the  tax  on  farming  land  will  decrease  the  earnings, 
and  therefore  the  interest  that  the  farmer  can  atford 
to  pay  for  money  with  which  to  bring  new  land  into 
cultivation.  So,  such  increase  of  tax  must  be  followed 
by  a  decrease  in  the  demand  for  money,  and  conse- 
quently the  loaning  of  money  at  a  lower  rate  of  inter- 
est. And  so  such  tax  would  indirectly  bear  upon  the 
loaner  of  the  money.  So,  to  tax  the  farmer  is  to  tax 
the  mortgage  holder.  And  inversely  is  it  argued  that 
to  tax  the  mortgage  holder  directly  is  to  tax  the  farm- 
er indirectly.  Thus,  put  a  tax  upon  farm  mortgages  so 
that  they  yield  a  smaller  return,  and  money,  before 
seeking  investment  in  farm  mortgages,  will  be  turned 
aside  for  other  investments  that,  though  before  prom- 
ising smaller  returns,  will  then  promise  larger.  As  a 
result,  there  would  be  less  money  for  investment  in 
farm  mortgages,  more  for  investment  in  other  direc- 
tions. So  there  would  follow  increased  competition 
among  farmers  as  borrowers  of  money,  which  would 
lead  to  the  payment  of  higher  rates  of  interest,  and  in- 
creased competition  among  loaners  of  money  for  in- 
vestments of  other  kinds  than  farm  mortgages,  which 
competition  among  loaners  would  lead  to  a  general 
reduction  of  interest  at  which  such  loans  could  be 
placed.  Thus  would  a  new  adjustment  be  forced,  part 
of  the  burdens  of  increased  farm  taxation  falling  upon 
the  farmers,  part  upon  the  loaners  of  money,  while 
borrowers  of  money  in  other  lines  would  profit  by  be- 
ing relieved  of  a  share  of  the  taxation  before  borne. 


TAXING    THE    POOR,    EXEMPTING    THK    RICH.       231 

TAX  CORPORATE   PROPERTY   AND  THE  SECURITY 
HOLDER   PAYS. 

What  we  have  said  of  farm  land,  of  railroad  or  other 
corporation  property  of  course  applies  with  equal  force 
to  city  property.  Tax  the  property  and  the  burden 
falls  upon  the  owners  of  the  property.  If  the  prop- 
erty is  mortgaged,  and  the  mortgage  holder  is  a  part 
owner  to  the  amount  of  his  mortgage,  the  tax  will  in 
the  long  run  divide  itself  between  mortgagee  and  mort- 
gagor according  to  their  proportionate  owTiership,  the 
ownership  of  the  mortgagee  being  a  part  equal  in 
value  to  the  face  of  the  mortgage,  and  the  ownership 
of  the  mortgagor  being  the  equity.  And  if  the  prop- 
erty is  held  in  corporate  name  and  represented  l)y 
stock  and  bonds  the  tax  will  fall  first  upon  stockhold- 
ers, ultimately  be  equitably  divided  between  stock- 
holders and  bondholders.  And  consequently  he  who 
owns  stocks  and  l)onds  and  mortgages,  and,  though 
having  title  to  no  property  in  his  own  name,  would 
not  escape  the  burden  of  taxation,  though  no  taxes 
were  imposed  upon  personal  property,  though  he  paid 
directly  into  the  coffers  of  the  State  no  tax,  but  would, 
if  all  real  property,  and  by  that  is  meant  all  immova- 
ble property,  Avere  taxed  equally,  bear  his  full  share  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation,  pay  his  just  share  of  the  costs 
of  government.  So  it  is  argued  that  stocks  and  bonds 
and  mortgages  and  evidences  of  debt  should  not  be 
taxed,  that  such  securities  are  not  property,  but  only 
evidences  of  part  ownership  of  property;  that  when 
such  property  is  taxed  the  burden  is  passed  along  to 
the  security  holders,  according  to  their  share  in  own- 
ership; that  to  tax  them  as  security  holders  would  h'^ 
to  subject  them  to  double  taxation;  that  consequently 
they  should  he  relieved  from  all  direct  taxation.  And 
there  is  no  denying  the  force  of  all  this  reasoning. 


232  THE    GREAT   ISSUES. 

TAX   ALL   REAL   PROPERTY,    AND   ALL   MEN  MUST   PAY, 
EACH    ACCORDING   TO    THEIR    JUST    SHARE. 

The  conclusion  is  that  if  we  tax  all  real  property 
equally  the  burden  of  taxation  will  adjust  itself  among 
all  men  according  to  their  store  of  this  world's  goods; 
that  if  we  so  tax,  each  man  will  contribute  to  the  sup- 
port of  government  according  to  his  means — his 
wealth.  And  surely  this  is  just.  So,  if  we  should  abol- 
ish all  taxes  on  personal  property,  taxes  which  the 
wealthier  now  escape,  that  the  poorer  citizens,  because 
of  the  nature  of  their  personal  property,  cannot,  and 
rely  wholly  for  local  revenues,  county  and  state,  upon 
taxes  on  real  property  it  is  evident  that  the  burdens 
of  taxation  would  be  distributed  equitably. 

BUT  CORPORATE  PROPERTY   ESCAPES  TAXATION. 

Now,  it  is  said  that,  while  the  wealthier  of  our  citi- 
zens, those  whose  wealth  consists  largely  of  personal 
property,  who  are  coupon  cutters,  interest  receivers, 
dividend  collectors,  swear  off  the  taxes  on  their  bonds 
and  stocks  and  mortgages,  hiding  such  personal  prop- 
erty from  the  assessor  and  denying  upon  oath  its  own- 
ership, they  do  not  escape  taxation,  that  the  property 
represented  by  the  securities  they  hold  is  taxed  and 
that  such  tax  is  virtually  deducted  from  the  returns 
they  receive  as  dividends  and  interest.  And  so  do  they 
find  some  moral  excuse  for  swearing  off  their  taxes. 
But  the  fact  is,  that  the  property  of  railroads,  steam 
and  street,  and  represented  by  various  securities,  is  not 
taxed  as  is  other  property.  Indeed,  as  a  general  thing, 
railroad  property  pays  nothing  like  so  high  a  percent- 
age of  taxes  proportionately  to  its  value  as  does  other 
property.  In  short,  other  property  is  assessed  at  much 
more  nearly  its  full  value.  And  so  it  follows  that  those 
whose  wealth  consists  of  certificates  of  ownership  in 


TAXING    THE    POOR,    EXEMPTING    THE    RICH.       233 

railroad  property  escape  their  just  share  of  local  taxa- 
tion, as  they  do  of  national. 

NON-TAXATION    OF   FRANCHISES. 

Thus,  in  many  localities  railroad  property  is  assessed 
as  if  the  land  occupied  was  so  much  farm  land,  the  per- 
manent way  and  the  franchise  not  being  assessed  at 
all.  It  may  be  objected  that  the  franchise  should  not 
be  taxed.  But  such  franchises  are  what  give  to  rail- 
road, and  especially  street  railway,  securities  a  great 
part  of  their  value.  Many  such  securities  are  valua- 
ble merely  as  certificates  of  part  ownership  in  such 
franchises,  the  total  value  of  the  material  property,  the 
tracks,  equipment,  etc.,  being  covered  by  bonds  and 
stocks  having  a  prior  lien.  True,  such  franchises  have 
value  and  are  given  by  the  people  to  the  railroads,  but 
such  franchises  are  not  given  to  be  used  to  tax  the 
people.  The  exclusive  rights  conferred  by  such  fran- 
chises put  the  people  at  the  mercy  of  the  roads  and  in 
a  position  where  they  must  submit  to  such  charges  as 
the  roads,  possessing  such  franchises,  may  see  fit  to 
charge,  and  charges  that  they  could  not  make  if  such 
franchises  did  not  give  them  a  monopoly.  And  so  the 
power  to  tax  the  people  conferred  by  such  franchises 
is  used  to  earn  interest  for  bondholders  and  dividends 
for  stockholders.  Without  the  exclusive  privileges  con- 
ferred by  the  franchises  such  interest  and  dividends 
could  not  be  earned. 

Clearly,  then,  the  franchises  give  value  to  stocks  and 
bonds  that  would  not  otherwise  have  value;  clearly  the 
franchises  are  a  valuable  part  of  the  property  of  rail- 
roads, often  the  most  valuable,  and  as  such  should  be 
taxed.  Indeed,  it  would  not  be  unfair,  but  only  just, 
to  tax  the  railroads  to  the  full  value  of  their  fran- 
chises— to  the  full  amount  that  they  are  enabled  to 


234  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

exact  annually  from  the  people  because  of  the  pos- 
session of  such  franchises  and  the  })o\ver  to  tax  the  peo- 
ple that  the  possession  of  such  franchises  confers. 

INJUSTICE    OF   SUCH    EXEMPTION. 

In  granting  a  franchise  to  a  railroad,  steam  or 
street,  the  people  confer  a  special  privilege,  and  to  the 
full  value  of  that  franchise  they  may  justly  tax  the 
railroad.  To  so  tax  would  not  be  confiscation;  indeed, 
in  not  so  taxing  the  people  are  not  just  to  themselves. 
Without  a  public  franchise  a  railroad  could  not  be 
built;  but  the  people  confer  such  franchise  that  they 
may  be  served,  not  that  they  may  be  taxed.  And  when 
the  few  possessing  such  franchises  use  the  special  privi- 
leges conferred  so  as  to  tax  the  people  and  charge  the 
people  for  the  use  of  their  own  franchises,  the  use  of 
their  own  streets,  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent 
domain  which  they  give,  then  it  is  the  right  of  the 
people  to  tax  back  from  the  corporations  that  which  is 
taken  from  them  without  value  given  in  return.  When 
a  railroad  presuming  upon  the  special  privileges  and 
monopoly  conferred  by  its  franchise  fixes  transporta- 
tion rates  so  as  to  earn  more  than  expenses  and  a  fair 
interest  upon  investment,  so  as  to  earn  interest  and 
dividends  on  securities  issued  beyond  the  actual  invest- 
ment of  capital,  just  then  does  it  cross  the  line  that 
marks  the  abuse  of  its  franchise,  and  the  only  safe- 
guard against  such  abuse,  while  the  railroads  remain 
in  private  hands,  is  to  tax  from  the  railroads  just  as 
much  as  the  railroads  take  from  the  people  by  the 
abuse  of  their  franchises,  and  thus  oblige  them  to 
make  restitution  of  that  which  they  could  not  take 
save  by  the  abuse  of  powers  conferred  upon  them  by 
the  people. 


TAXIXG    THK    POOR.    EXEMPTING    THE    RICH.        23"< 

AND  SO   WE  HAVE   A  TAXING   OF    IHE   POOR   FOR  THE 
SUPPORT   OF   THE   RICH. 

But  at  present  we  do  not  tax  the  railroads  upon  the 
value  of  their  franchises,  though  the  railroads  do 
abuse  such  franchises.  And  so  it  is  that  the  rich,  whost' 
property  consists  of  bonds  and  stocks  that  are  merely 
certificates  of  ownership  to  such  untaxed  property,  do 
in  great  part  escape  taxation.  And  escaping  taxation 
the  burdens,  falling  upon  the  rest  of  our  citizens,  are, 
of  course,  increased,  for  the  costs  of  government  have 
to  be  met  by  some  one,  and  if  they  are  not  met  by 
those  profiting  from  most  valuable  special  privileges 
conferred  by  government,  not  met  by  those  who  re- 
ceive the  greatest  benefits  at  the  hands  of  government, 
they  must  be  met  by  those  whose  property  is  a  kind 
that  does  not  escape  assessment  for  the  purpose  of 
taxation.  And  so  we  really  have  a  taxing  of  the  poor 
for  the  enrichment  of  the  rich. 

HOW   LOCAL   TAXATION,    NOW    WANTING    IN   JUSTICE,   CAN 
BE   MADE   EQUITABLE. 

But  from  what  we  have  said,  it  is  clear  that  if  all 
real  property  was  equitably  assessed  and  taxed  for  the 
purposes  of  local  government,  the  millionaires  whose 
wealth  consists  largely  of  personal  property,  or  rather 
evidences  of  part  ownership  to  property  held  in  other 
hands,  would  not  escape  taxation,  but  would  in  the 
long  run  bear  their  full  share,  no  more,  no  less.  Of 
course,  taxes  levied  on  corporate  properties  would  not 
at  once  fall  equitably  among  the  security  holders,  but 
would  first  fall  upon  stockholders  and  junior  security 
holders,  for  reasons  that  we  have  given.  But  ulti- 
mately, and  by  steps  so  gradual  as  to  be  unperceived — 
.'■0  gradual,  indeed,  as  to  be  denied — an  equitable  ad- 
justment of  the  burden  of  taxes  and  costs  of  govern- 


236  THE    OREAT    ISSUES. 

inent  would  work  out  from  natural  causes.  And  so 
would  we  have  Justice  in  local  ta.xation,  something  we 
have  not  now,  but  seek  to  reach  by  taxing  personal 
property,  directly  taxing  the  possessors  of  bonds  and 
stocks  and  mortgages  upon  the  value  of  such  securi- 
ties, something  which  is  impossible,  for  the  frailty  of 
human  nature  is  such  that  men  will  deny  such  owner- 
ship that  cannot  be  proven,  for  the  eyes  of  the  asses- 
sor cannot  rest  upon  such  securities,  and  so  escape 
taxation.  But  if  we  taxed  the  property  upon  which 
such  securities  were  issued,  and  taxed  it  proportion- 
ately to  other  property,  assessing  the  franchises  equally 
with  the  material  property  held,  and  to  the  extent  that 
such  franchises  were  made  valuable  by  the  exercise  of 
the  power  conferred  through  such  franchises  to  tax 
the  people,  then  the  possessors  of  the  securities  repre- 
senting such  property  could  not  escape  taxation,  for 
the  earning  power  of  such  property,  and  so  of  divi- 
dends and  interest  distributed,  would  be  reduced  by 
the  amount  of  the  tax.  x\nd  thus  those  coupon  clip- 
pers and  dividend  collectors  whose  wealth  is  in  such 
shape  that  it  cannot  be  reached  by  direct  taxation, 
would  be  reached  by  indirect,  and  so  would  the  bur- 
dens of  taxation  now  resting  upon  producers,  upon 
farmers  and  manufacturers  in  excess  of  their  share, 
and  because  of  false,  but  no  less  effectual,  swearing  off 
of  taxes  by  those  who  are  wealthy  in  property  held  in 
other  hands,  but  not  in  property  in  their  own,  be  re- 
moved to  the  great  advantage  of  industry  and  trade. 
It  is,  indeed,  said  that  those  bond  and  stock  and  mort- 
gage holders  who  now  escape  taxation,  could  not  be 
reached  in  this  way,  that  they  would  succeed  in  trans- 
ferring the  burdens  to  other  shoulders,  that  if,  for  in- 
stance, a  railroad  was  taxed  so  as  to  reduce  its  earn- 
ings and  the  profits  for  division  among  security  hold- 
ers, transportation  charges  would  at  once  be  raised  so 


TAXING    THE    POOR,    EXEMPTING    THE    RICH.       237 

as  to  make  iijj  this  reduction  and  thus  virtually  pass 
along  the  tax.  But  the  railroads  now  charge  all  that 
they  can,  make  tlic  most  out  of  their  special  privilege.^ 
that  circumstances  will  permit,  and  so  the  raising  of 
rates  to  pass  along  the  tax  would  be  practioally  im])Os- 
sible. 

All  that  we  have  so  far  said  has  reference  to  local 
taxation,  to  township  and  municipal  and  county  and' 
state  taxation,  shows  how  this  taxation  is  wanting  in 
elements  of  justice,  how  the  poor  are  taxed  more  lieav- 
ily  than  the  rich,  the  producers  more  heavily  than 
the  non-producers,  and  how  this  can  be  remedied. 
What  we  now  desire  to  direct  attention  to  is  our 
national  taxation,  the  inequality  of  which  is  much 
more  flagrant,  for  the  wealthier  of  our  citizens  have,  to 
a  very  great  extent,  succeeded  in  having  themselves 
relieved  of  the  costs  of  the  national  government.  In 
national  taxation  the  principle  of  taxing  the  poor,  not 
the  rich,  has  been  strikingly  observed. 

THE    BURDEN    OF    NATIONAL    TAXATION    AND    GROSS 
INJUSTICE. 

But  before  we  enter  further  into  the  question,  let  us 
stop  for  one  moment  to  consider  what  our  national 
taxes  amount  to. 

The  expenditures  of  the  national  government,  aside 
from  the  postal  expenditures,  which  are  met  by  those 
who  receive  a  direct  benefit  in  return — the  postal  tax- 
payer or  purchaser  of  postal  stamps  paying  directly  for 
a  service  of  a  value  equivalent  to  what  he  pays — 
amount,  under  ordinary  conditions,  to  about  $375,000,- 
000  annually,  or  $o  per  head.  And  these  taxes  are  so 
imposed  that  practically  each  head  of  a  family  con- 
tributes out  of  his  earnings  $0  for  each  person  shel- 
tered under  his  roof  and  eating  at  his  board.  In  other 
words,  the  rich  man  contributes  no  more  than  the  poor 


238  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

man,  save  so  far  as  he  hires  servants  and  so  swells  the 
number  of  persons  .sheltered  under  his  roof,  eating  at 
hi.s  board,  and  whose  indireet  taxes  he  pays.  Xow,  if 
a  national  revenue  oliicer  made  yearly  rounds  to  col- 
lect from  the  head  of  each  household,  and  regardless 
of  differences  in  wealth  or  earnings,  $5  for  each  mem- 
ber of  the  household  of  which  he  was  the  head,  ser- 
vants inclusive,  there  would  be  a  great  outcry  against 
the  injustice  of  taxing  the  poor  as  much  as  the  rich. 
What  is  more,  the  national  tax  would  be  considered 
most  oppressive  by  the  poor,  as,  indeed,  it  would  be. 

INDIRECT   TAXES   AS   THE   COVER   OF   INJUSTICE    AND 
EXTRAVAGANCE. 

But  now  this  tax  is  so  collected  that  it  is  paid  un- 
complainingly; or  if  there  is  any  complaint,  any  diffi- 
culty, because  of  such  tax,  and  the  increased  costs  of 
the  articles  of  common  consvimption  in  making  ends 
meet  and  securing  the  necessaries  of  life,  the  govern- 
ment does  not  bear  the  brunt  of  the  complaint.  It  is 
simply  because  the  national  taxes  are  indirect,  because 
they  are  covered  in  the  costs  of  sugar  and  tea  and  beer 
and  spirits  and  tobacco  and  proprietary  medicines,  and 
not  recognized  as  taxes,  that  they  are  paid  uncomplain- 
ingly and  without  the  inequality  of  their  burden  being 
recognized.  And  it  is  just  because  indirect  taxes  serve 
to  hide  such  inequalities  and  lead  the  people  to  put  up 
with  injustice,  because  they  do  not  see  it.  that  such 
taxes  are  objectionable.  They  are  further  objection- 
able in  that  they  hide  from  the  people  the  weight  of 
their  taxes,  and  so  cause  them  to  have  less  regard  for 
the  manner  of  expenditure,  for  men  will  not  protest 
against  some  extravagance  when  that  extravagance  is 
met  out  of  an  indirect  tax  on  sugar,  whieli  is  r-overed 
into  the  price  of  the  sugar  they  buy  and  whieli  they 
pay,  grumbling,  perhaps,  at  the  increased  price,  but 


TAXING   THE   rOL'B,   EXEMPTING   THE   RICH.       239 

not  recognizing  it  as  a  tax;  while  if  the  tax  to  cover 
such  added  expenditure  was  imposed  directly,  so  that 
each  taxpayer  would  pay  the  tax  directly  into  the 
hands  of  the  tax  collector,  there  would  be  a  vigorous 
protest  against  any  extravagance  and  a  careful  watch 
kept  over  all  expenditures. 

INJUSTICE  OF  QUE  INTERNAL  REVENUE  TAXES. 

Now  it  is  said  by  apologists  for  the  injustice  of  our 
national  system  of  taxation,  that  the  internal  revenue 
taxes,  or  more  properly  excises,  are  not  imposed  oji 
articles  of  necessity,  but  of  voluntary  use — indeed, 
upon  articles  that,  if  not  positively  injurious,  men 
would  be  better  off  if  they  did  without — that  is  to  say, 
spirits  and  tobacco  and  proprietary  medicines.  But 
without  entering  into  the  merits  or  demerits  of  cer- 
tain proprietary  medicines  or  of  the  use  of  tobacco  or 
spirits,  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  here  that  the  internal 
revenue  taxes  are  not  imposed  as  sumptuary  laws,  as 
laws  to  reform  the  morals  or  health  of  the  community, 
and  therefore  we  may  dismiss  this  question.  And,  dis- 
missing this  question,  it  is  to  be  remarked  as  an  un- 
doubted fact  that  tobacco  and  spirits  and  proprietary 
medicines  are  articles  of  general  consumption,  and 
used  by  the  poor  quite  as  generally  as  by  the  rich. 
And  so  it  is  that  taxes  levied  on  the  consumption  of 
such  articles,  and  that  result  in  raising  the  price,  fall 
upon  the  poor  even  as  they  do  upon  the  rich.  ;ind  in 
proportion  to  their  relative  wealth  much  more  heavily 
upon  the  poor  than  upon  the  rich. 

OF  OUR  TARIFF  TAXES. 

But  passing  from  internal  revenue  taxes  to  customs 
duties,  we  find  this  injustice  towards  our  poorer  citi- 
zens even  more  pronounced,  the  taxes  partaking  even 
more  of  the  nature  of  per  capita  taxes.    Thus  our  cus- 


240  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

toras  imposts  may  be  divided  into  two  categories — 
those  imposed  for  purposes  of  protection,  but  inciden- 
tally raising  revenue,  and  those  imposed  for  revenue 
pur])()ses,  as  the  duties  upon  sugar  and  tea,  duties  of 
which  latter  kind  yield  about  half  of  our  customs  rev- 
enues. And  such  duties  rest,  as  is  very  obvious,  not 
upon  men  in  proportion  to  their  wealth,  but  according 
to  the  numljer  of  pounds  of  tea  and  sugar  they  con- 
sume. And  as  the  poor  consume  practically  as  much 
sugar,  and  probably  more  tea,  head  for  head,  than  our 
richer  citizens,  these  taxes  amount  to  nothing  less 
than  per  capita  taxes.  In  the  case  of  the  internal  rev- 
enue taxes,  the  superior  and  more  expensive  grades  of 
tobacco  are  taxed  more  highly  than  the  cheaper,  and 
so  the  rich  pay  a  higher  tobacco  tax;  not  higher  pro- 
portionately to  their  means — indeed,  not  nearly  so 
high — but  higher  in  dollars  and  cents.  But  not  so 
with  the  customs  taxes  imposed  for  revenue, 

PROTECTIVE  DUTIES  NO  BURDEN. 

The  customs  duties  imposed  for  protection  of  course 
do  not,  if  they  serve  their  end — namely,  free  us  from 
dependence  on  foreign  sources  of  supply  and  lead  to  a 
reduction  in  price — bear  as  taxes.  Nor  does  it  do  to 
assume  that  customs  duties  imposed  for  purposes  of 
protection  have  tailed  of  their  purpose  because  arti- 
cles of  European  make  and  similar  to  the  protected 
articles  can  be  bought  cheaper  in  Europe  than 
America,  and  could  be  sold  for  less  in  America  than 
the  prodticts  of  our  own  manufactories  are  sold  for,  if 
it  were  not  for  the  duties;  for  the  imposition  of  such 
protective  duties  may,  by  building  up  competition, 
have  been  the  primary  cause  for  the  lowering  of  the 
prices  at  which  European  goods  are  offered — prices  to 
which  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  European  manu- 
facturers wotild  have  reduced  their  goods  if  competi- 


TAXING   THE    POOE,    EXEMPTING    I'HE    RICH.        vii 

tion  in  America,  stimulated  by  protective  duties,  had 
not  constrained  them. 

RAISE  MORE  TAXES. 

But  it  is  not  into  an  argument  in  defense  of  the  sys- 
tem of  protection  that  we  desire  to  enter  here.  We 
need  only  add  that  as  protective  duties  accomplish 
their  purpose  revenues  collected  thereunder  fall  off. 
And  to  this  we  may  add  that  the  generally  curtailed 
purchasing  power  of  our  people  has  led  to  great  fall- 
ing otf  of  imports  of  foreign  merchandise  during  the 
past  few  years.  Consequently,  tariff  duties  have  not 
yielded  anticipated  revenues.  And  recognizing  this, 
and  the  need  of  more  revenue  if  expansion  of  our  cur- 
rency through  a  paying  out  of  the  money  now  hoarded 
in  the  Treasury  is  to  be  prevented,  the  gathering  of 
rich  men  cry  out  with  one  accord:  "Yes,  raise  more 
taxes,  but  tax  the  poor,  not  us."  So  has  said  Senator 
Hanna,  though  since  called  down  by  Mr.  Dingley  and 
other  party  associates  for  proclaiming  the  failure  of 
the  Dingley  law  as  a  revenue  measure, 

BUT  TAX  THE  POOR,  NOT  ME. :MARK  HANNA. 

Mr.  Dingley  asserts  that  it  has  been  no  failure,  and 
Mr.  Hanna  crawfishes  dutifully.  But  this  does  not  de- 
tract from  the  interest  of  Mr.  Hanna's  clear-cut 
avowal  that  "  we  must  have  a  new  revenue  measure  " 
— not  immediately,  but  some  time  in  the  indefinite  fu- 
ture, as  he  explained  in  a  supplementary  interview 
after  hearing  from  Mr.  Dingley,  and  that  "  so  far  as  I 
am  concerned  I  favor  putting  a  duty  on  tea  and  cof- 
fee," which  is  to  say  that  being  a  rich  man  he  favors 
taxing  the  poor  not  himself,  and  that  as  he  consumes 
no  more  tea  and  coffee  than  the  day  laborer  he  sees  he 
can  accomplish  this  by  imposing  such  a  tax  as  will  be 
covered  into  the  cost  of  such  articles  and  thus  be  in- 


242  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

directly  paid  by  tlie  people,  Mark  Hanua  paying  just 
one  dollar  toward  a  tax  of  say  $70,000,000,  and  each 
day  laborer  one  dollar. 

And  the  great  advantages  of  a  tax  on  tea  and  cofEee, 
Senator  Hanna  further  amplified,  saying  that  "  the 
revenues  for  the  support  of  the  government  must  be 
raised  in  some  way,  and  the  indirect  way  is  the  best 
way  to  my  idea,"  for  "  when  the  people  do  not  realize 
they  are  paying  a  tax  there  is  no  complaint.''  And  so 
the  advantages  of  a  tea  and  coffee  tax  covered  into  the 
price  of  such  goods  and  collected  from  the  people 
without  realization  on  their  part,  for  surely  they 
would  never  agree  to  the  raising  of  say  $70,000,000  of 
additional  revenue  in  a  way  which  would  require  Mark 
Hanna  to  pay  one  dollar  towards  such  tax  for  each 
member  of  his  household  and  require  the  poorest  la- 
borer to  contribute  a  dollar  for  each  person  dependent 
upon  his  scant  earnings  for  the  necessaries  of  life — 
would  never  agree  to  such  injustice,  if  they  knew  what 
they  were  doing.  So  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  indirect 
way  of  raising  taxation  is  the  best  way  according  to  the 
idea  of  the  rich  men.  It  is  the  best  way  because  it 
hides  the  gross  injustice  of  taxation  from  which  they 
profit,  an  injustice  to  which  the  people  would  never 
submit  if  it  was  not  so  hidden  as  to  pass  unrecognized 
by  them  even  while  groaning  under  its  burdens.  And 
coffee  offers  at  present  an  especially  inviting  field,  for 
the  fall  in  price  during  the  past  three  years  is  such 
that  a  tax  upon  it,  such  as  would  alone  yield  the  gov- 
ernment a  revenue  of  $70,000,000  a  year,  could  be  im- 
posed without  raising  the  price  of  coffee  above  the 
level  of  four  years  ago. 

TAXATION  OF  OUE  WEALTHIER  CITIZENS. 

In  proportion  to  the  wealth  that  men  enjoy  under 
the  protection  of  government  should  they  contribute 


TAXIXG    THE    POOR,    EXEMPTIXO    THE    RICH.       '^43 

to  the  support  of  government.  It  is  the  goverunient 
that  secures  to  them  the  ownership  of  property  and  its 
enjoyment;  it  is  the  government  that  gives  title  to  the 
land  that  enables  men  to  charge  rent  for  its  use;  it  is 
the  government  that  gives  franchises  to  railroads  and 
gives  charters  to  corporations  by  which  our  wealtliier 
citizens  are  enabled  to  invest  in  railroads  and  corpora- 
tions without  eiitailing  liability  beyond  the  amount  j 
of  their  investments;  it  is  the  government  that  pro- 
tects their  ownership  in  such  corporate  properties  and 
as  represented  by  stocks  and  bonds;  it  is  under  the 
protection  of  government  that  they  draw  interest  and 
dividends.  In  short,  it  is  under  the  sheltering  arm  oi: 
government  that  they  enjoy  the  advantages  that 
wealth  confers.  It  is  that  arm  that  protects  them  from 
despoilment;  to  the  protection  of  that  arm  they  owe 
all  that  they  have,  and  yet  they  not  only  seek  to  shift 
the  costs  of  upholding  that  arm  to  tbe  shoulders  of 
others  less  able  to  bear  them,  and  owing  less  to  the 
protection  of  that  arm,  but  endeavor  to  use  that  arm 
to  despoil  others. 

PRINCIPLES   OF   JUST   AND   UNJUST  TAXATIOX. 

Clearly  this  is  the  height  of  injustice.  The  strong 
arm  of  government  should  be  raised  to  protect  all  men, 
poor  as  well  as  rich,  from  despoilment,  and  the  costs  of 
upholding  it  should  be  paid  by  those  who  owe  most  to 
its  upholding,  paid  by  men  in  proportion  to  the  wealth 
wliich  they  enjoy  under  tbe  ])rotection  of  government. 

This  is  the  rule  of  justice.  We  have  seen  how  it  can 
be  applied  in  local  taxation;  it  could  similarly  be  ap 
plied  in  national  taxation.  But  to  avoid  clash  between 
state  taxes  and  national  taxes  we  can  draw  a  divisional 
line,  collect  the  taxes  for  local  and  state  purposes  by 
direct  tax  on  the  accumulated  wealth  of  society,  collect 


244  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

the  national  taxes  l)y  a  direct  tax  on  the  earnings  of  ac- 
cumuhitod  wealth,  and  thus  tax  every  man  aecordin<f  to 
his  means,  secure  a  just  distrihution  of  the  hurdens  of 
taxation,  and  so  promote  enterprise,  industry,  thrift 
and  general  prosperity. 


CONSTITUTIONALITY  OF  AN  INCOME  TAX. 

[April  30th,  1898.— The  Spanish  War  tax  being  then  i>endlng  before  Congress.] 

TO  CARRY  on  the  war  with  Spain  we  will  need 
money,  perhaps  much  more  than  can  be  conveni- 
ently spared  from  the  present  balance  in  the 
Treasury,  and  to  provide  such  money  an  elaborate 
measure  of  taxation  has  been  prepared  by  the  powers 
that  rule  the  Republican  party.  It  is  unfortunate  that 
that  measure  should  not  be  conceived  on  lines  of 
equity  and  justice,  but  so  framed  as  to  throw  a  dispro- 
])ortionate  part  of  the  burdens  of  taxation  upon  the 
poorer  members  of  society,  but  -o  it  has  been  drawn. 
Whether  it  is  fated  that  we  shall  be  burdened  with 
such  unfair  taxes  and  the  evils  inseparable  from  war  be 
thus  multiplied  remains  to  be  seen;  but  we  must  con- 
fess that  the  probabilities  are  that  we  shall  be  so  bur- 
dened. To  a  great  extent  it  was  so  in  our  last  war, 
and  it  is  written  in  the  proposed  revenue  measure 
tliat  it  shall  be  so  to  an  even  greater  extent  in  this. 
It  is  said  that  new  interpretation  of  our  fundamental 
hiw,  of  our  Constitution,  makes  this  inevitable,  and 
well  it  may  be  so.  But,  even  so,  the  war  is  not  to  be 
regretted,  but  welcomed,  for  the  evils  that  the  war  is 
undertaken  to  do  away  with  are  greater  than  the  evils 
that  may  be  incurred. 

A  more  simple  and  effective  measure  of  taxation 
than  the  one  proposed,  and  a  measure  as  just  and 
equitable  and  nearly  perfect  as  it  is  possible  for  man 
to  devise,  could  have  been  found  in  an  income  tax,  and 
such  a  tax  was  incorporated  into  the  revenue  measures 
of  the  Civil  War.  But  such  a  tax,  made  a  part  of  the 
revenue  measure  passed  by  tin'  Democratic  party  in 


246  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

1894,  was  annulled  by  the  Supreme  Court  as  uncon- 
stitutional, although  the  constitutionality  of  such 
taxes  had  been  affirmed  on  several  occasions  prior 
thereto.  And  so  the  United  States  is  proscribed  from 
resort  to  this  justest  and  most  equitable  of  taxes,  pro- 
scribed while  the  latest  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
stands. 

It  was  said,  indeed,  at  the  time  of  the  annulment  of 
the  last  income  tax  as  unconstitutional,  that  the  pre- 
vious income  taxes  were  defensible,  and  only  defensi- 
ble, as  war  taxes,  and  on  this  ground  it  is  said  that 
the  Supreme  Court  would  now  have  to  hold  an  income 
tax  to  be  constitutional  as  a  war  measure.  But  it  is 
hard  to  conceive  that  a  tax  would  be  constitutional 
in  war  time  that  would  not  be  constitutional  in  time  of 
peace,  and  in  rendering  its  last  decision  the  Supreme 
Court  made  no  such  nice  distinction.  It  may  well  be 
that  a  tax  would  be  justifiable  as  a  war  measure  that 
would  not  be  justifiable  as  a  peace  measure;  there  may 
well  be  times  when  it  would  be  wise  to  impose  a  tax 
that  it  would  be  unwise  to  impose  under  different 
conditions,  but  it  is  for  Congress,  not  the  Supreme 
Court,  to  judge  of  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom,  the  time- 
liness or  otherwise  of  legislation. 

For  the  Supreme  Court  to  hold  a  tax  constitutional 
as  a  war  measure  and  unconstitutional  as  a  peace 
measure  would  be  to  assume  the  right  to  say  when  a 
law  might  be  imposed  as  wise  and  when  repealed  as 
unwise,  and  such  usurpation  the  Supreme  Court  has 
never  attempted.  So  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  Supreme  Court  would  now  reverse  its  posi- 
tion taken  three  years  ago  as  to  the  unconstitution- 
ality of  an  income  tax  simply  because  the  income  tax 
law  declared  unconstitutional  was  passed  in  time  of 
peace,  and  that  an  income  tax  law  enacted  now  would 
be  enacted  in  time  of  war. 


CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF    AN    INCOMK    TAX.         217 

It  is  indeed  true  that  in  the  opinion  handed  down  by 
Chief  Justice  Fuller  upon  the  income  tax  case  of  three 
years  ago,  and  handed  down  as  the  opinion  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  court,  reference  was  incidentally  made  to 
the  income  tax  of  1864  as  a  war  tax,  from  which  some 
draw  the  inference  that  the  court  only  looked  upon 
the  income  tax  of  1894  as  unconstitutional  because 
passed  as  a  peace  measure.  But  the  Constitution 
makes  no  distinction  between  war  taxes  and  peace 
taxes,  and  from  the  reference  made  to  w^ar  taxes  it  is 
not  to  be  inferred  that  the  court  made  any  such  dis- 
tinction. 

This  incidental  reference  of  the  court  to  war  taxes 
was  made  in  this  wise:  Early  in  the  history  of  the 
republic,  and  when  war  was  threatened  with  France, 
Congress  passed  a  law  taxing  carriages.  This  tax  was 
opposed  as  unconstitutional  on  the  same  ground  that 
the  income  tax  before  the  court  was  opposed:  namely, 
that  it  was  a  direct  tax,  and  therefore,  under  the  Con- 
stitution, should  have  been  apportioned  among  the 
States,  not  according  to  the  number  of  carriages,  but 
according  to  the  number  of  people.  On  the  face  of  it 
such  an  apportionment  appears  absurd,  as  it  would 
leave  the  justice  and  uniformity  of  the  tax  to  the 
merest  chance.  But  no  more  absurd  would  it  be  than 
an  income  tax  apportioned  among  the  several  States, 
not  according  to  wealth  and  income,  but  according  to 
population.  An  income  tax  so  apportioned,  and  so 
as  to  jie\d  to  the  government,  say.  2  per  cent,  of  the 
aggregate  income  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
enjoying  incomes  of  over  $4,000  a  year,  and,  as  was 
proposed  by  the  law  of  1894,  might  very  readily  and 
undoubtedly  would  result  in  a  many-fold  greater  tax 
on  incomes  in  the  poorer  States  than  in  the  richer 
States,  in  the  States  where  few  men  of  large  fortunes 
reside  than  in  the  States  where  many  rich  are  to  be 


348  THE    GKE.\T    ISSUES. 

found.  It  is  not  at  all  iiiipo.ssible  that  an  income  tax 
of  2  per  cent.,  so  apportioned,  would  rest  so  heavily 
upon  the  well-to-do  of  some  of  the  largely  agricul- 
tural States  of  the  South,  where  the  well-to-do  are 
few,  as  to  tax  from  them  all  income  of  over  $4,000, 
while,  from  the  well-to-do  in  New  York,  where  the 
rich  are  many,  there  would  be  taxed  very  considerably 
less  than  2  per  cent,  of  their  incomes. 

Obviously,  if  an  income  tax  must  be  apportioned  so 
as  to  be  thus  unjust,  no  Congress,  with  a  regard  for 
the  equities  of  taxation,  could  resort  to  such  tax.  Yet 
it  is  thus  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  said  an  income 
tax  must  be  apportioned  in  order  to  be  constitutional. 

We  may  well  hold  it  to  be  an  absurd  decision,  for 
it  decrees  that  an  income  tax,  to  be  constitutional,  can- 
not be  uniform,  and  it  is  written  in  the  Constitution 
that  "  all  duties,  imposts  and  excises  shall  be  uniform 
throughout  the  United  States."  And  inconceivable  it 
is  that  the  same  constitutional  convention  that  de- 
creed that  all  indirect  taxes  should  be  uniform,  should 
have  conceived  any  tax  to  be  direct,  when  it  declared 
that  all  direct  taxes  must  be  apportioned  among  the 
States  according  to  numbers,  that  could  not  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  States  so  as  to  be  uniform  through- 
out the  United  States.  As  Justice  Iredell  said  a  hun- 
dred years  ago,  in  his  opinion  on  the  carriage  tax 
aforementioned,  "  As  all  direct  taxes  must  be  appor- 
tioned, it  is  evident  that  the  Constitution  contem- 
plated none  as  direct  but  such  as  could  be  appor- 
tioned." 

On  this  and  other  grounds  the  carriage  tax  was  held , 
not  to  be  a  direct  tax  within  the  meaning  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  therefore  constitutional,  although  not 
apportioned  among  the  States  according  to  popula- 
tion. It  could  not  be  so  apportioned,  and  still  appor- 
tioned among  the  States  according  to  the  rule  of  uni- 


CONSTITUTIONALITY   OF    AN    INCOME    TAX.         249 

formity.  And  neither  can  an  income  tax.  Yet,  to 
be  lawfully  imposed,  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that 
an  income  tax  must  be  imposed  so  as  to  defeat  uni- 
formity of  imposition,  imposed  without  regard  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Constitution! 

And  now,  to  get  l)ack  to  the  incidental  reference  of 
the  Supreme  Court  in  its  late  income  tax  decision  to 
war  taxes  from  which  the  inference  is  drawn  that  the 
court  would  perhaps  draw  a  distinction  lietween  an 
income  tax  passed  in  time  of  peace  aiid  an  income  tax 
])assed  in  time  of  war. 

Tt  was  in  speaking  of  this  carriage  tax  which  was 
declared  to  be  constitutional  a  century  ago,  that  Chief 
Justice  Fuller  aiid  his  associate  justices  who  concurred 
with  him  made  incidental  reference  to  war  taxes. 
And  the  reference  was  this:  "  The  act  of  June  4th, 
1794,  laying  duties  upon  carriages  for  the  conveyance 
of  persons,  was  enacted  in  a  time  of  threatened  war. 
It  was,  therefore,  as  much  a  part  of  a  i^ystem  of  tax- 
ation in  war  times  as  was  the  income  tax  of  the  war  of 
the  rebellion." 

But  it  was  not  on  the  ground  that  the  carriage 
tax  of  1794  was  a  war  tax  and  the  income  tax  of  1894 
a  peace  tax  that  the  Supreme  Court  declared  there 
was  not  a  parallel  between  the  two  cases,  and  that 
there  was  no  reason  for  the  court  of  1894  to  be  guided 
in  its  decision  on  the  income  tax  by  the  decision  of 
the  court  of  1794  upon  the  carriage  tax.  It  had  been 
urged  before  the  court  that  both  cases  involved  the 
same  principle,  that  both  turned  upon  the  sanu>  in- 
terpretation of  direct  taxation  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Constitution,  and  for  the  very  good  reason,  and 
what  seems  to  us  conclusive  reason,  that  we  have 
pointed  out.  But  the  court  held  there  was  no  paral- 
lel between  the  two  cases,  that  the  carriage  tax  was 
regarded  as  an  excise  tax,  and  therefore  not  a  direct 


250  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

tax  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution;  that  an 
income  tax  on  incomes  derived  from  the  hiring  of 
carriages,  or  from  other  personal  property,  or  from 
rents  on  lands,  is  a  direct  tax,  and  therefore  not  con- 
stitutional unless  apportioned  among  the  States  ac- 
cording to  population,  apportioned  as  no  uniform,  no 
just,  no  equitable  income  tax  can  be,  as  the  tax  of 
1 894  was  not. 

So  we  repeat  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
Supreme  Court  would  declare  an  income  tax  passed 
now  to  be  constitutional  as  a  war  tax.  The  last  decis- 
ion of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  income  tax  case  of 
1894  appears  to  us  manifestly  wrong  and  unjust,  for 
it  hangs  on  the  assumption  that  a  meaning  is  to  be  at- 
tached to  the  words  of  the  Constitution  that  is  quite 
contradictory,  and  by  which  the  unmistakable  pur- 
poses of  its  framers  are  defeated.  And  on  this  ground 
the  Supreme  Court  might  well  reverse  its  decision; 
but  this  the  Court  as  now  constituted  will  not  do. 

No  man  can  question  that  the  purpose  of  the  build- 
ers of  the  Constitution  was  to  insure  a  uniform  system 
of  taxation,  a  system  that  would  be  just  and  equitable. 
And  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  when  they  decreed 
that  direct  taxes  should  be  apportioned  among  the 
States  according  to  numbers,  they  had  in  mind  taxes 
that  could  not  be  so  apportioned  without  destroying 
the  principle  of  uniformity.  It  certainly  was  not  the 
intent  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  to  make  it 
impossible  for  Congress  to  impose  a  uniform  income 
tax,  or  carriage  tax,  or  any  other  tax.  The  intent 
was,  beyond  peradventure,  just  the  opposite,  namely, 
to  make  it  impossible  for  Congress  to  impose  taxes 
that  would  not  be  uniform  in  fact,  even  if  they  were 
in  name,  and  that  would  he  oppressive  in  some  of  the 
States. 

The  tax  peculiarly  in  view,  and    the    tax  against 


CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF    AN    INCOME    TAX.         251 

which  it  was  aimed  to  primarily  guard,  was  a  capita- 
tion tax  on  slaves.  Obviously  such  a  tax  would  have 
rested  largely,  almost  wholly,  upon  the  Southern 
States,  compelled  those  States  to  contribute  much  be- 
yond their  share  to  the  support  of  the  national  gov- 
ernment, and,  as  the  major  part  of  the  new  Union  in 
both  number  of  States  and  population  was  opposed  to 
slavery,  it  was  feared  by  the  Southern  States  that 
such  a  tax  would  be  imposed  u]wn  tlieui.  It  was 
primarily  to  guard  against  this  that  it  was  proposed 
that  all  direct  taxes  should  be  apportioned  among  the 
States  according  to  population.  It  happened,  also, 
that  land  in  the  extreme  Southern  States  was  propor- 
tionately of  lesser  value,  acre  for  acre,  than  in  the 
Middle  States,  and  it  was  feared  that  the  Middle  and 
J'lastern  States,  outvoting  the  Southern  States  in  Con- 
gress, would  impose  an  arbitrary  land  tax  of  so  much 
per  acre,  and  thus  throw  the  burdens  of  government 
unduly  upon  the  Southern  States. 

Unless  this  was  guarded  against,  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  speaking  through  their  delegates  to  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention,  announced  that  they  would 
not  enter  the  Union,  and  it  was  feared  that  upon  their 
decision  would  rest  the  decision  of  North  Carolina. 
As  a  safeguard  against  such  taxes,  the  insistent  de- 
mand of  (Jeorgia  and  South  Carolina  was  that  the 
slave-holding  States  should  be  given  a  representation 
ill  the  House  of  Representatives  as  numerous  as  the 
non-slave-holding  States.  With  such  a  representation, 
they  could,  of  course,  protect  themselves  against  taxes 
on  slaves  of  so  much  a  head,  and  on  land  of  so  much 
per  acre,  such  as  they  greatly  feared  would  otherwise 
grow  out  of  the  Union  and  that  would  be  unjust  to 
them.  To  get  such  a  representation  they  insisted  that 
representation  should  be  accorded  to  them  for  their 
slaves,  just  as  if  their  slaves  were  so  many  freemen. 


252  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

This  was  strenuously  resisted  by  the  iN^orthern  States. 
Finally  a  compromise  was  suggested  on  the  basis  of 
tlie  numbers  of  free  inhabitants  and  three-fifths  of  all 
others.  Virginia,  represented  by  high-minded  men, 
who  regarded  slavery  as  alien  to  our  institutions,  and 
an  evil  to  the  States  in  which  it  was  planted,  an  evil 
of  which  they  well  wished  Virginia  were  free,  agreed 
to  the  compromise,  and  it  was  accepted. 

At  this  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  threatened  to 
withdraw,  declaring  it  would  lay  the  Southern  States 
open  to  unjust  and  oppressive  taxation;  that  if  they 
joined  the  Union  under  such  an  agreement,  they  could 
be  obliged  to  pay  a  disproportionate  share  of  the  costs 
of  government,  and  that,  if  signing  the  Constitution 
meant  risking  this,  they  would  not  sign.  Thus  things 
stood  at  the  close  of  one  of  those  momentous  days  in 
the  history  of  the  Convention,  when  the  fate  of  a  na- 
tion seemed  to  hang  in  the  balance,  stood  on  the  11th 
of  July,  1787,  when  Gouverneur  Morris,  of  New  York, 
always  a  hater  of  slavery,  closed  the  debate  in  these 
words: 

"  I  am  reduced  to  the  dilemma  of  doing  injustice 
to  the  Southern  States  or  to  human  nature,  and  I  do 
it  to  the  former;  I  can  never  agree  to  give  such  en- 
couragement to  the  slave  trade  as  would  be  given  by 
allowing  them  a  representation  for  their  negroes." 

And  now  we  come  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which 
the  restriction  as  to  the  imposition  of  direct  taxes 
found  its  way  into  the  Constitution.  As  it  is  impor- 
tant, inestimably  so,  as  bearing  upon  the  meaning  of 
the  words  direct  taxes,  as  used  in  the  Constitution, 
we  continue  the  story  from  the  eve  of  the  11th,  and 
when  the  convention  was  seemingly  on  the  point  of 
breaking  up,  in  the  words  of  Bancroft: 


CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF    AN    INCOME   TAX.  253 

"The  aspect  (if  afl'airs  at  the  adjournment  was  not 
so  dangerous  as  it  seemed.  Virginia,  with  a  united 
delegation,  had  her  hand  on  the  helm,  while  North 
Carolina  held  watch  at  her  side. 

''  But  Gouverneur  ]\lorris  brooded  over  the  deep  gulf 
hy  which  the  convention  seemed  to  him  rent  in  twain, 
and  rashly  undertook  to  build  a  bridge  over  the  chasm. 
'L'o  that  end  he  proposed  the  next  morning  (July  12th) 
that  taxation  should  be  in  proportion  to  representa- 
tion. }Jis  inotion  was  general,  extending  to  every 
branch  of  revenue. 

"  The  convention  was  taken  Ijy  surprise.  South 
(Carolina  scorned  to  be  driven  from  her  object  by  the 
menace  of  increased  contriljutions  to  the  general  trea- 
uiT,  and  again  demanded  a  full  representation  for  all 
blacks.  Mason  pointed  out  that  the  proposal  of 
Gouverneur  Morris  would  so  embarrass  the  Legislature 
in  raising  a  revenue  that  the}''  would  l)e  driven  back  to 
requisitions  on  the  States.  Appalled  at  discovering 
that  his  motion  was  a  death  blow  to  th'^  n"w  Constitu- 
tion, Morris  limited  it  to  direct  taxation,  saying:  '  It 
would  be  inapplicable  to  indirect  taxes  on  exports  and 
imports  and  consumption.'  Cotesworth  Pinckney  took 
fire  at  the  idea  of  taxing  exports.  Wilson  came  to  the 
partial  rescue  of  ]\Iorris,  and  the  convention,  without  a 
dissentient,  agreed  that  direct  taxation  ought  to  be 
in  proportion  to  representation.  In  this  short  inter- 
lude, by  the  temerity  of  one  man,  the  United  States 
were  precluded  from  deriving  an  equitable  revenue 
from  real  property.  ^loiris  soon  s^aw  w  hat  evil  he  had 
wrought,  but  he  vainly  strove  to  retrieve  it." 

So  we  see  the  motive  of  Morris  in  making  tbc  mo- 
tion that  led  to  the  resolution  that  all  direct  taxes 
should  be  in  proportion  to  re])resentation,  or,  as  af- 
terwards put,  apportioned  among  the  States  according 


354  TllH    URKAT    ISSUES. 

to  their  numbers  to  1)C  deteniiined  by  adding  to  the 
whole  number  of  freemen  three-fifth.s  of  the  slaves. 
The  purpose  of  1\1  orris  was  evifb'ntly  to  steer  the  con- 
vention around-  the  l)reakers  that  seemed  to  confront 
it.  Those  breakers  were  the  threats  of  South  Carolina 
and  Oeorgia,  growing  out  of  the  fear  that  they  would 
be  subjected  to  unjust  slave  and  land  taxes  if  they 
joined  the  Union  without  the  security  that  full  rep- 
resentation of  their  negro  slaves  in  Congress  would 
give  to  them.  The  aim  of  Morris  was  to  av<ii(l  "  (b)ing 
injustice  to  the  Southern  States"  by  exposing  them  to 
oppressive  taxation  at  the  mercy  of  the  anti-slave 
States  and  at  the  same  time  to  avoid  outraging  his 
sense  of  human  justice. 

We  have  pointed  out  the  fears  of  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  that  by  joining  in  the  Union  they  would 
expose  themselves  to  oppressive  taxation,  the  dangers 
they  thought  they  would  run  because  of  v/ant  of  jus- 
tice on  the  part  of  the  Northern  States  and  dangers 
they  did  not  care  to  risk.  These  dangers  were  taxes 
on  slaves,  of  which  the  Northern  States  held  few.  and 
taxes  on  land,  which  was  relatively  cheap  in  the  South, 
of  so  inuch  per  acre.  Such  a  slave  tax  would  have 
compelled  the  Southern  States  to  contribute  infinitely 
more  to  the  support  of  the  Government  than  their 
Northern  sisters,  and  such  a  land  tax  would  have  been 
many  fold  more  burdensome  in  the  South  than  in  the 
North.  Yet  it  was  very  obvious  that,  if  the  Southern 
States  were  not  given  full  representation  in  the  Tlouse 
of  Representatives  for  their  slaves,  they  would  be  out- 
voted by  the  Northern  States,  which  might  arbitrarily 
and  unjustly  put  upon  the  South  a  disproportionate 
part  of  the  costs  of  government  by  imposing  such 
taxes. 

To  expose  the  Southern  States  to  the  possibility 
of  such  taxation,  Morris  saw,  was  an  injustice  to  them; 


CONSTITUTTOXALITY    OF    AN    INCOME    TAX.         255 

yet,  to  protect  thein  against  such  injustice  by  giving 
them  full  representation  for  their  slaves,  and  so  en- 
couraging the  extension  of  the  slave  trade,  he  felt  to 
be  a  greater  outrage  to  human  nature.  In  this  dilem- 
ma lie  sought  for  some  other  means  by  which  the 
Southern  States  might  be  safeguarded  against  unjust 
taxation,  against  a  capitation  and  land  tax  of  the  na- 
ture above  recorded.  This  he  saw  could  be  accom- 
plished by  providing  that  such  taxes  should  be  in  pro- 
portion to  representation.  In  feverish  haste  he  fol- 
lowed this  thought  out  by  proposing  that  all  taxes 
should  1)0  so  apportioned,  and  then  amending  this 
])roposition  so  as  to  cover  direct  taxes  only.  And  this 
})roposition  the  convention  agreed  to  as  providing  for 
safeguards  such  as  would  secure  a  uniformity  of  taxa- 
tion, such  as  woukl  insure  the  Southern  States  against 
being  called  upon  to  contribute  more  than  their  share 
to  the  sup])ort  of  the  government. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that,  in  the  view  of  the  Constitution 
makers,  direct  taxes  were  primarily  capitation  taxes 
of  so  much  per  head,  and  land  taxes  of  so  much  per 
acre,  and  that  in  the  Constitution  the  words  direct 
taxes  must  be  taken  in  the  meaning  of  capitation 
taxes  and  land  taxes.  It  is  clear  that  this  is  the  mean- 
ing in  which  Bancroft  was  convinced  that  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  held  the  words  direct  taxes;  it  is 
char  that  in  proposing  to  apportion  direct  taxation 
according  to  representation  Gouverneur  Morris  went  in 
his  haste  further  than  he  intended;  that  he  precluded 
the  United  Stales  not  only  from  imposing  capitation 
taxes  of  so  much  per  head  and  h'.nd  taxes  of  so  mnch 
per  acre,  save  by  apportionment  among  the  States  ac- 
cording to  numbers,  and,  as  was  obviously  his  purpose. 
but  from  imposing  land  taxes  upon  a  basis  of  values, 
taxes  that  woidd  be  thoroughly  uniform  and  equitable 
throughout  the  United  States.     He  intended  to  pre- 


256  THE    GRKAT    ISSUES. 

elude  the  United  States  from  raising  land  taxes  on  a 
basis  of  so  niiich  per  acre,  because  they  would  not  be 
uniform  or  equital)lc  throughout  the  United  States, 
but  just  tiiG  reverse. 

We  also  leiirn  that  Morris  later  labored,  but  in  vain, 
to  undo  that  which  he  had  done  without  due  thought. 
Hut,  while  it  was  generally  understood  when  the  Con- 
stitution was  adopted,  that  the  effect  of  the  Morris 
motion  was  to  preclude  the  United  States  from  impos- 
ing an  equitable  land  tax,  no  one  dreamed  that  it  pre- 
cluded the  United  States  from  imposing  an  income 
tax,  from  deriving  revenue  by  an  equitable  tax  upon 
accumulated  wealth.  Yet  it  is  thus  that  the  clauses 
in  the  Constitution  that  grew  out  of  this  motion  are 
now  interpreted.  They  are  interpreted  so  as  to  pre- 
clude the  United  States  from  taxing  men  according  to 
their  means,  interpreted  so  as  to  make  the  collection 
of  a  uniform  income  tax  an  impossibility.  And  the 
very  clauses  that  are  thus  interpreted  were  adopted 
with  a  view  to  secure  a  uniformity  of  taxation.  It  is 
a  false  interpretation  and  as  such  might  well  be  re- 
versed. 

And  on  this  ground  it  is  urged  that  the  income  tax 
question  may  well  be  reopened  by  the  enactment  of  an 
income  tax  that  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  given  an 
opportunity  to  pass  again  on  the  constitutionality  of 
an  income  tax  and  reverse  the  former  decision.  But 
reversion  of  the  decision  is  no  more  to  be  expected 
on  this  ground,  namely,  that  the  latest  interpretation, 
reversing  as  it  did  former  decisions,  was  wrong,  that 
the  older  decisions  were  right,  than  it  is  to  be  ex- 
pected that  the  court  would  to-day  declare  an  income 
tax  constitutional  as  a  war  tax  and  thus  declare  an 
income  tax  constitutional  as  a  war  measure  unconsti- 
tutional as  a  peace  measure. 

It    is   indeed   true  that  the  personnel  of  the  court 


CONSTITUTIONALITY   OF   AN   INCOME   TAX.         257 

has  been  somewhat  changed  since  it  rendered  the  de- 
cision adverse  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  income 
tax  law  of  1894,  in  May,  1895,  and  it  is  true  that  this 
decision  was  rendered  by  the  bare  majority  of  o  to  4, 
and  because  of  this  change  of  personnel  it  is  urged 
that  the  court  might  reverse  its  position  should  the 
question  be  tried  again  to-day.  But  for  this  hope 
there  is  no  ground. 

With  the  hand  of  death  resting  heavily  upon  him. 
Justice  Jackson,  of  Tennessee,  arose  from  his  sick 
Ijed  three  years  ago  to  be  recorded  in  favor  of  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  tax.  He  thus  arose  from  his  sick 
licd,  with  the  shadow  of  the  grave  upon  him,  and, 
though  he  thereby  invited  an  earlier  arrival  of  death, 
to  break  a  tie  in  the  Supreme  Court,  and  that  the  in- 
come tax  might  be  declared  constitutional.  But  he 
arose  in  vain,  for  Justice  Shiras,  of  Pennsylvania,  who 
had  l)ut  a  few  days  l)efore  voted  to  declare  the  income 
tax  constitutional,  changed  his  vote.  And  now,  Jack- 
son, who  upheld  the  constitutionality  of  the  income 
tax,  is  dead,  and  his  place  filled  by  Peckham,  of  New 
York,  an  appointee  of  Mr.  Cleveland. 

One  other  change  there  has  also  been  in  the  Court. 
Justice  Field,  of  California,  who  voted  against  the  in- 
come tax,  has  resigned,  and  his  place  been  filled  by 
Justice  McKenna,  late  Attorney-General  in  Mr.  Mc- 
Kinley's  Cabinet.  So  two  judges  who  took  part  in 
rendering  the  last  income  tax  decision,  one  who  held 
the  tax  to  be  unconstitutional  and  one  who  dissented, 
can  take  no  part  in  a  review  of  the  case.  But  who 
can  doubt  that  Justice  Peckham,  appointed  by  Mr. 
Cleveland,  taken  from  the  bar  of  New  York  and  l)rod 
in  all  its  influences  of  wealth,  would  hold  an  income 
tax  to  be  unconstitutional?  And  what  reason  is  there 
to  believe  that  Justice  McKenna  would  decide  differ- 
ently?   The  truth  is  that  the  view  that  an  income  tax 


358  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

is  unconstitutional  is,  in  all  probability,  stronger  in  tbe 
court  to-day  tban  it  was  in  1895. 

Before  an  income  tax  can  be  imposed  an  appeal 
must  be  taken  to  a  higher  court,  the  court  of  the  peo- 
ple. To  de\ise  a  limping  income  tax  that  would  not 
conflict  with  the  fundamental  law  as  now  interpreted 
is  quite  possible.  But  such  an  income  tax  we  do  not 
want,  for  it  would  not  be  equitable;  to  devise  it  would 
be  a  sheer  waste  of  time.  Why  this  is  so,  why  we 
should  direct  our  energies  to  securing  a  reversal  of 
the  decision  of  the  court,  and  a  reversal  not  by  the 
court,  but  by  the  people,  how  the  income  tax  case 
should  be  reopened  and  how  the  appeal  taken  to  the 
highest  courts,  are  questions  that  remain  to  ])e  consid- 
ered. 

Just  may  an  income  tax  be;  false  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Constitution  that  precludes  the 
TTnited  States  from  imposing  a  uniform  income  tax, 
but  such  interpretation,  false  as  it  may  be,  stands,  and 
there  is  no  ground  for  hope  that  the  present  Supreme 
Court  will  reverse  the  decision  of  the  court  of  1895. 
It  is  the  condition  that  confronts  us.  From  imposing 
an  income  tax  Congress  is  at  present  precluded.  It 
may  enact  an  income  tax,  but  if  that  tax  be  uniform, 
it  will  be  held  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  no 
law.  What  Congress  enacts  in  this  line  of  taxation 
the  court  will  veto.  The  court  must  be  changed  or  the 
power  to  veto  an  income  tax  taken  from  it  ere  such 
tax  can  stand. 

It  is  indeed  urged  that  an  income  tax  may  be  do- 
vised  that  would  be  constitutional  under  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  1895,  and  it  is  quite  possible 
that  such  a  tax  could  be  devised.  But  such  a  tax  could 
not  be  uniform  and  equitable,  and  therefore  cannot 
be  pressed  by  those  who  believe  in  equality  of  taxation. 
An  income  tax  that  rests  on  all  income  equally  from 


COXSTITUTIO.XALITY    OF    AX    INCOME    TAX.         259 

whatsoever  source  it  may  be  derived  is  as  just  a  tax 
as  can  be  conceived,  for  it  must  rest  upon  all  men  ac- 
cording to  their  means;  but  an  income  tax  that  is  mu- 
tilated so  as  to  tax  the  toilers  and  producers  of  society 
and  leave  the  drones  escape  is  not  a  tax  that  can  be 
considered  by  believers  in  equality.  And  it  is  only 
this  sort  of  a  mutilated  income  tax  that  can  be  consid- 
ered constitutional  under  the  income  tax  decision  of 
1895.  Therefore,  that  decision  precluding  the  collec- 
tion of  a  uniform  income  tax  precludes  the  imposition 
of  any;  it  shuts  the  United  States  off  from  an  income 
tax  as  a  source  of  revenue,  not  indeed  absolutely  by 
name,  but  by  shutting  off  a  uniform  income  tax  and 
an  income  tax  that  is  not  uniform  cannot  be  thought 
of. 

So  it  is  not  worth  our  while  to  attempt  to  devise  an 
income  tax  that  would  be  constitutional  as  the  Consti- 
tution is  now  interpreted.  In  1895  the  Supreme 
Court  annulled  the  whole  of  the  income  tax  of  1894, 
but  not  on  the  ground  that  the  whole  of  it  was  uncon- 
stitutional. It  did  so  on  the  ground  that  a  tax  on  in- 
come derived  from  rents  was  a  direct  tax  on  lands,  and 
therefore  unconstitutional  unless  apportioned  among 
the  states  according  to  numbers,  which  it  was  not.  i\.nd 
this  much  of  the  tax  being  declared  unconstitutional, 
as  was  also  a  tax  on  income  derived  from  personal 
])ro])erty,  and  on  the  same  ground,  it  was  held  that 
the  tjalance  of  the  income  tax  was  invalid,  not  in  itself 
as  unconstitutional,  but  because  the  major  part  of  the 
tax  was  invalidated,  and  the  scope  of  the  proposed  tax 
so  broken  that  it  could  not  with  reason  be  assumed 
that  Congress  would  have  ])assed  the  residue  of  the 
tax  not  held  to  be  unconstitutional  independently  of 
that  part  which  was  so  held  and  invalidated.  There- 
fore the  whole  was  invalidated. 

Under  this  decision  a  tax  imposed  on  the  income 


260  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

of  the  laborer,  or  the  clerk,  or  the  professional  man, 
derived  from  their  lal^or;  or  on  the  inc-oiiie  of  the 
farmer  or  manufacturer  or  merchant  derived  from 
their  industry,  hut  not  from  any  savings,  may  be  con- 
sidered constitutional,  l)ut  the  income  of  the  landlord, 
the  mortgage  holder  or  bondholder  must  not  be  taxed 
by  the  National  Government  save  by  apportionnumt 
among  the  several  states  according  to  numbers,  which 
would  be  so  ine(|uitable  as  to  be  out  of  the  question. 
Therefore  shall  we  reopen  the  income  tax  case,  for  we 
cannot  get  justice  until  we  do. 

A  tax  on  income  derived  from  rents  the  Su- 
preme Court  lias  held  to  be  a  tax  on  land,  a  tax 
on  income  derived  from  interest  on  mortgages 
or  bonds  a  t.ax  on  personal  property,  and  so  un- 
constitutional when  not  apportioned  among  the 
states  according  to  numbers,  for  it  is  generally  ad- 
mitted that  a  tax  on  land  is  a  direct  tax  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  was  asserted  by 
the  court  that  a  tax  on  personal  property  is  a  direct 
tax.  And  so  likewise  it  might  be  held  that  that  part 
of  the  income  of  the  farmer  owning  his  farm  as  might 
properly  be  regarded  as  the  renting  value  of  the  farm, 
and  that  part  of  the  income  of  the  manufacturer  as 
might  be  regarded  as  the  earnings  of  his  property 
rather  than  his  industry  would  be  exempt  from  all  in- 
come tax.  But  the  total  income  derived  from  indus- 
try, and  that  means  absolutely  all  the  income  of  the 
tenant  farmer  or  the  manufacturer  renting  his  plant 
or  paying  interest  on  a  debt  representing  its  full  value, 
can  be  lawfully  subjected  to  an  income  tax  under  the 
present  interpretation  of  our  fundamental  law,  and 
so  can  income  of  clerk  or  teacher  derived  from  salary, 
or  of  laborer  from  wages,  or  professional  man  from 
fees.     But  the  income  of  the  drawer  of  rents  and  in- 


CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF    AN    INCOME    TAX.         261 

terest  must  not  be  taxed;  from  the  industrious  an  in- 
come tax  may  be  exacted,  but  from  the  drones,  no. 

This  is  drawing  a  line  that  is  unwarrantable.  In 
a  broad  sense  an  income  tax  may  be  justly  regarded  as 
a  direct  tax.  It  is  direct  because  he  upon  whom  the 
tax  is  levied  pays  the  tax,  because  he  who  pays  the  tax 
cannot  pass  it  on  to  some  one  else,  collect  it  from  some 
one  else,  so  as  to  leave  his  own  income  unreduced. 
And  this  is  true  of  an  income  tax  whether  derived 
from  wages  or  salary  or  from  rents  or  interest.  The 
clause  is  indeed  often  written  into  bonds  and  mort- 
gages that  the  borrower  shall  pay  the  taxes,  that  the 
loaner  shall  receive  a  fixed  interest  free  of  tax.  But 
such  clause  only  permits  the  loaner  to  escape  taxation 
when  such  taxation  is  imposed  upon  the  borrower. 
When  the  tax  is  imposed  upon  the  loaner,  upon  the 
receiver  of  interest,  as  an  income  tax  should  be,  he 
cannot  escape.  So  in  this  broad  sense  all  income 
taxes  are  direct  taxes,  and  therefore  under  a  strict  in- 
terpretation of  the  Constitution  unconstitutional. 

But  in  interpreting  the  Constitution  we  must  con- 
sider the  meaning  of  words  at  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  and  not  a  meaning  given  to  them 
since.  iVnd  as  used  in  the  Constitution,  direct  taxes 
meant  capitation  and  land  taxes,  not  income  taxes. 

It  is  very  true  that  the  great  majority  of  political 
economists  classify  an  income  tax  as  a  direct  tax,  but 
what  have  the  definitions  given  by  political  economists 
(luring  the  last  century  to  do  with  the  meaning  at- 
tached to  direct  taxes  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  before  these  definitions  of  economists  were 
current  or  published?  It  must  be  remembered  that 
Adam  Smith's  "  Wealth  of  Nations  "  was  a  new  book 
when  our  Constitution  was  made. 

The  Supreme  Court,  in  passing  upon  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  income  tax  of  1894,  did  not,  however, 


262  THE    GKEAT    ISSUES. 

base  its  decision  on  any  such  broad  ground;  it  did  not 
assume  as  an  invariable  rule  that  a  direct  tax  in  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution  is  one  that  rests  upon 
the  persons  paying  the  tax  into  the  Treasury,  an  in- 
direct tax,  one  the  burden  of  which  is  shifted  to  other 
shoulders  by  the  persons  paying  the  tax  into  the  Treas- 
ury, so  that  the  nominal  payers  of  the  tax  are  not  the 
actual  payers.  Thus  customs  taxes  and  the  greater 
part  of  stamp  taxes,  and  internal  revenue  taxes, 
are  indirect.  The  importer  who  pays  a  duty  on  sugar 
is  not  the  actual  payer  of  such  tax,  for  he  adds  the  tax 
he  pays  into  the  selling  price  of  such  products.  So 
the  consumer  of  the  sugar  is  the  real  taxpayer,  not  the 
importer  who  pays  the  tax  into  the  Treasury. 

And  so  it  is  with  the  manufacturer  of  tobacco.  He 
buys  the  stamps,  but  the  cost  of  those  stamps  is  added 
to  the  price  of  the  tobacco.  The  consumer  is  the  ac- 
tual, though  not  the  nominal,  taxpayer.  And  all  such 
taxes  are  indirect,  for  the  government,  in  collecting 
such  taxes  from  importer  and  manufacturer,  taxes  the 
consumers  through  such  men. 

Therefore  such  taxes  are  indirect  and  indisputably 
so.  The  real  taxpayer  pays  the  tax  to  the  seller  of  the 
goods  in  the  shape  of  an  enhanced  price  which  im- 
porter and  manufacturer  exact  in  order  to  recompense 
themselves  for  the  impost  or  tax  paid  the  government. 
The  result  is  that  the  real  payers  of  indirect  taxes  are 
not  cognizant  of  the  payment  of  such  taxes  in  one  case 
out  of  a  hundred.  But  the  payer  of  direct  taxes  never 
pays  such  taxes  without  being  cognizant  of  the  tax,  for 
such  taxes  he  pays  as  taxes  in  name  as  well  as  fact, 
not  as  enhanced  prices.  The  burden  of  the  tax  rest- 
ing on  the  payer  of  the  tax  is  the  very  essence  of  di- 
rect taxation,  the  shifting  of  the  tax  by  him  from 
whom  it  is  collected  to  other  shoulders  is  the  essence 
of  indirect  taxation.     In  indirect  taxation  the  appar- 


CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF    AN    INCOME    TAX.         263 

ent  and  actual  payer  are  not  the  same,  in  direct  they 
are. 

This  is  the  simple  and  generally  accepted  defini- 
tion to-day.  But  it  was  not  the  obvious,  not  the  ac- 
cepted meaning  at  the  time  the  Constitution  was 
framed  and  ratified.  The  distinction  was  not  then 
sharply  drawn.  Direct  taxes,  in  the  meaning  of  the 
Constitution,  are  capitation  and  land  taxes.  We  are  | 
convinced  that  no  other  taxes  were  meant  by  the  fram- 
crs  of  the  Constitution  when  they  declared  that  all 
direct  taxes  should  be  apportioned  among  the  States 
according  to  population.  ^Ye  have  given  reasons  for 
this  conclusion  that  to  us  seem  unassailable. 

The  Supreme  Court,  in  its  income  tax  decision  of 
1895,  went  further  than  to  declare  capitation  and  land 
taxes  to  be  direct,  declaring  taxes  on  personal  property 
;ind  income  derived  from  such  property  to  be  direct 
taxes  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution.  But 
the  court  rested  its  chief  finding  on  the  ground  '"  that 
taxes  on  real  estate  being  indisputably  direct  taxes, 
taxes  on  the  rents  or  incomes  of  real  estate  are  equally 
direct  taxes." 

So  let  us  examine  this  contention  and  see  what  war- 
rant there  is,  if  any,  for  the  conclusion  that  a  tax  on 
rents  is  a  direct  tax  within  the  meaning  of  the  Consti- 
tution. That  there  is  absolutely  none  we  believe  the 
history  of  the  incorporation  into  the  Constitution  of 
the  clauses  in  which  reference  is  made  to  direct  taxes 
conclusively  shows.  But  to  start  oft'  with,  we  are  in 
fairness  constrained  to  weaken  our  case  by  candidly 
admitting  not  only  that  a  land  tax  is  a  direct  tax.  but 
that  a  tax  on  incomes  derived  from  rents  is  equally  so. 
The  landlord  cannot  ])ass  on  a  tax  on  rents,  or  a  tax 
on  the  income  of  real  estate  to  his  tenants.  He 
nmst  pay  such  tax  and  he  must  bear  it.  By  the  amount 
of  the  income  tax  he  pays  will  his  income  be  reduced. 


264  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

for  he  cannot,  because  of  such  tax,  increase  his  rents 
and  60  make  his  tenants  pay  the  tax.  Therefore,  such 
tax  on  incomes  is  a  direct  tax.  It  is  a  direct  tax  be- 
cause it  is  paid  into  the  National  Treasury  ])y  those 
who  bear  it,  because  those  who  pay  it  do  not  act  as  in- 
termediaries on  behalf  of  the  government  for  the  col- 
lection of  revenues  from  consumers. 

Such  was  the  view  taken  by  the  court  which  rea- 
soned on  the  old  Ricardian  theory  of  rent,  a  theory 
that  should  be  exploded  as  not  in  accord  with  the 
facts,  but  is  not.  This  theory,  which  is  built  on  the 
false  assumption  that  the  richer  lands  are  the  first  to 
be  cultivated,  the  poorer  and  least  productive  the  last, 
is  that  prices  of  products  must  be  high  enough  to  pay 
the  costs  of  cultivation  on  the  poorer  farms  and  leave 
a  margin  of  profit  to  the  producer  sufficient  to  en- 
courage him  to  continue  production.  Therefore,  the 
richer  farms  will  yield  a  profit  over  the  poorer  farms 
of  exactly  the  value  of  the  amount  of  produce  that  can 
be  raised  on  such  farms  in  excess  of  what  can  be  raised 
on  the  poorer  farms  of  like  area.  And  this  profit  is 
said  to  be  the  renting  value,  and  the  happy  possessor 
of  such  land  can  exact  a  rent  equal  to  the  difference  in 
the  productiveness  of  such  farms  and  the  productive- 
ness of  the  poorer,  for  it  is  reasoned  the  cultivation  of 
the  poorest  must  be  profitable,  else  such  farms  would 
not  be  cultivated.  Thus  if  it  will  pay  to  cultivate  the 
farm  that  will  yield  but  ten  bushels  of  wheat  to  the 
acre  it  is  reasoned  that  the  farm  that  will  yield  twenty 
will  have  a  renting  value  of  ten  bushels  an  acre,  the 
farm  that  yields  thirty  bushels  a  renting  value  of 
twenty,  for  it  is  assumed  that  the  tenant  cultivating 
thirty  bushel  land  and  paying  for  it  a  rental  of  twenty 
bushels  per  acre  will  be  just  as  well  off  as  the  farmer 
who  owns  and  cultivates  ten  bushel  land.  The  con- 
clusion is,  that  tenants  can  always  be  had  for  the  richer 


CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF    AN    INCOME    TAX.         265 

lands  who  will  agree  to  pay  as  rent  the  difference  in 
the  productiveness  between  such  lands  and  the  poor- 
est. 

This  is  the  basic  idea  of  the  Ricardian  theory  of 
rent.  Accepting  this  theory  it  is  quite  evident  that 
a  tax  on  rents  is  a  tax  on  the  landlord,  that  such  tax 
cannot  be  passed  on  to  the  tenant,  and  that,  therefore, 
a  tax  on  incomes  derived  from  rents  is  a  direct  tax. 
Thus,  if  the  income  tax  is  placed  at  20  per  cent,  the 
landlord  possessing  land  producing  twenty  bushels  of 
wheat  per  acre  as  an  average,  would  have  to  pay  a  tax 
of  two  bushels  and  his  income  would  be  reduced  from 
ten  to  eight  bushels  per  acre.  It  would  be  reduced 
because  he  could  not  raise  rents  by  two  bushels  an 
acre.  To  do  so  would  reduce  the  share  of  the  tenant 
to  eight  bushels,  and  if  this  would  not  pay  the  costs 
of  cultivation  such  tenants  would  cease  to  cultivate, 
and  perforce  abandon  the  farms  to  take  up  the  cultiva- 
tion of  the  poorer  soils,  even  migrate  beyond  the  seas 
in  search  of  such  lands  if  they  could  not  be  had  at 
home.  Such  in  its  bald  outline  is  the  Ricardian  theory 
of  rent  as  given  to  the  world  by  British  theorists. 

But  this  theory  is  built  on  assumptions  that  are 
((uite  the  reverse  of  true.  This  must  be  plain  to  the 
most  casual  observer  in  all  new  countries,  and  it  has 
been  noted  by  all  those  economists  in  the  new  lands 
who  have  been  free  enough  of  preconceived  notions  to 
brush  aside  the  cobwebs  of  theory  where  theory  has 
not  comported  to  the  facts.  The  truth  is  that  the 
poorer  and  least  productive  lands  are  the  first  to  be 
cultivated,  the  richest  the  last.  The  poorest  are  first 
cultivated  because  they  are  timbered  the  lightest  and 
the  easiest  to  cultivate;  the  richest  the  last  because  it 
takes  more  capital  to  bring  them  into  cultivation,  be- 
cause they  are  generally  heavily  timbered  and  must  be 
drained  before  crops  can  be  remuneratively  grown.  And 


266  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

SO  they  only  come  under  cultivation  as  capital  accumu- 
lates; they  are  the  last  to  be  cultivated  because  the  first 
costs  are  greatest.  But  just  where  the  first  costs  are 
greatest  the  final  profits  are  greatest,  and  as  such  land 
is  cultivated  the  productiveness  of  labor  increases. 
The  greater  outlay  necessitated  by  the  cultivation  of 
such  soils  is  amply  rewarded,  and  even  in  the  oldest 
countries  vast  tracts  of  such  lands  are  unreclaimed,  un- 
used. 

And  where  such  lands  are  free  and  open  to  cultiva- 
tion the  rent  of  a  farm  amounts  to  what  would  come 
to  something  more  than  the  ruling  rate  of  interest  on 
the  amount  of  capital  it  would  take  to  reclaim  land  of 
an  equal  area  and  richness  and  erect  corresponding 
buildings  thereon.  The  energetic  young  man  of  the 
farm,  seeking  to  establish  a  home,  will  ever  be  ready 
to  pay  such  interest  for  money  in  order  to  gain  a  farm 
as  he  judges  he  can  earn  upon  such  farm  in  excess  of 
a  profit  such  as  he  may  deem  suflRcient  to  recompense 
him  for  his  labor  and  the  risk  undertaken.  A  farm 
similar  to  that  which  he  might  create  would  rent  for 
somethingmore  than  the  rate  of  interest  on  the  capital 
needed  to  create  such  a  farm,  for  the  risks  and  hard- 
ships of  cutting  out  a  new  path  are  greater  than  cling- 
ing to  an  old,  and  the  rewards  must  be  greater  to  in- 
cite men  to  the  striking  out  on  new  paths.  But  it  is 
none  the  less  true  that  rents  and  interest  rates  fluc- 
tuate together,  and  both  fluctuate  with  prices  and  in 
like  direction,  though  they  fluctuate  after  prices  with 
great  tardiness  with  the  result  that  when  prices  fall 
producers  are  subjected  to  inevitable  losses. 

So  we  see  rents  are  closely  related  to  interest  rates, 
and  so  rents  cannot  be  raised  unless  interest  rates  are. 
They  cannot,  for  the  inevitable  result  would  be  to  cause 
an  abandonment  of  old  farms  and  the  bringing  under 
cultivation  of  new  fields,  bv  which  we  do  not  mean 


CONSTITUTIONAfJTV    OF    AX    INCOME    TAX.         2G7 

tracts  of  the  public  domain  now  well  nigh  exhausted, 
but  tracts  on  old  farms  that  have  never  been  culti- 
vated, though  it  is  likely  that  such  tracts  are  the  rich- 
est, and  the  reclaiming  and  cultivation  of  these  would 
make  place  for  the  laborers  thrown  out  of  employment 
by  the  abandonment  of  farms.  Therefore  if  we  tax 
incomes  derived  from  rents  the  landlords  must  bear 
such  tax,  for  to  raise  rents  because  of  such  tax  would 
but  cause  many  of  the  farms  on  which  rents  were 
raised  to  be  abandoned  by  tenants  who  would  throw 
up  their  leases  before  agreeing  to  an  increased  rent 
which  the  majority  could  ill  afford.  Before  rents  can 
be  raised  profits  must  be  raised,  for  tenants  cannot  pay 
more  than  they  can  earn. 

Let  landlords  in  a  city  advance  rents  while  money 
to  build  new  houses  can  be  had  on  mortgage  at  no  ad- 
vance in  rate  above  that  demanded  by  lenders  before 
the  landlord  raised  rents,  and  new  houses  will  Ije 
built  in  greatly  increased  numbers,  for  men  would  find 
it  so  mucli  chaper  to  live  in  a  house  owned  subject  to 
a  mortgage  than  a  rented  house  that  many  would 
make  great  exertions  to  borrow  money  to  build  homes 
of  their  own.  So  the  old  would  be  abandoned  for  the 
new,  and  thus  in  short  order  the  landlords  be  obliged 
to  put  down  rents  to  keep  tenants.  Unless  interest 
rates  went  up,  and  interest  rates  do  not  go  up  unless 
profits  go  up,  landlords  could  not  increase  rents  even 
if  incomes  derived  from  rents  were  taxed  so  as  to  vir- 
tually reduce  rents  to  them.  They  would  have  to  pay 
the  tax,  and  so  would  an  income  tax  on  rents  be  direct. 

So  a  tax  on  rents  w^ould  be  borne  by  the  landlord, 
and  as  such  would  be  a  direct  tax  as  defined  by  the 
generality  of  political  economists  who  have  written 
since  the  adoption  of  our  Constitution.  Moreover, 
such  a  tax  reducing  the  renting  value  of  land  and 
li.ouses  would  be  equivalent,  so  far  as  the  landlord  is 


!&68  THE    GREAT   ISSUES. 

concerned,  to  a  direct  tax  on  the  land  itself.  And  it 
i?  on  this  latter  ground,  not  the  firf5t.  that  the  Su- 
preme Court  has  held  a  tax  on  income  derived  from 
rents  to  he  unconstitutional.  The  court  did  not  set 
up  the  claim  that  income  taxes  are  direct,  and  that  as 
such  a  tax  on  rents  is  unconstitutional.  Quite  to  the 
contrary  it  admitted  that  income  taxes  were  not,  of 
themselves,  in  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  direct, 
hut  that  the  tax  on  income  derived  from  rents  was  un- 
constitutional hecause  taxes  on  real  estate  are  direct 
taxes  in  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  tax  on 
rents  derived  from  lands  a  tax  upon  the  lands  them- 
selves. On  this  ground  the  court  held  the  part  of  the 
income  tax  of  1894:  relating  to  rents  unconstitutional, 
and  other  parts  to  be  constitutional  though  invalid  be- 
cause all  the  parts  of  the  income  tax  were  held  to  be 
so  mutually  connected  and  dependent  that  a  part 
could  not  he  invalidated  without  invalidating  the 
whole. 

In  thus  interpreting  the  Constitution,  interpreting 
it  so  as  to  make  a  tax  on  income  derived  from  rents 
unconstitutional  as  a  direct  tax  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Constitution,  and  further  applying  the  same  doe- 
trine  to  personal  property,  and  an  income  tax  on  in- 
terest or  dividends  or  profits  derived  from  personal 
property,  the  court  departed  widely  from  the  interpre- 
tation given  the  Constitution  by  those  who  had  part 
in  its  making.  On  this  point  there  is  no  room  for  dis- 
pute. There  is  little  question  that  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  meant  by  direct  taxes  capitation  and  land 
taxes  and  none  other;  that  they  did  not  mean  taxes  on 
personal  property  of  any  kind;  that  they  would  not 
have  considered  a  tax  on  rents  as  the  same  thing  as  a 
tax  on  lands.  That  such  was  the  meaning  there  is 
every  reason  to  suppose  from  the  purpose  and  manner 
of  drafting  the  direct  tax  clauses  into  the  Constitu- 


COXSTITUTIOXALITY    OF    AN    INCOME    TAX.         269 

lion.  They  went  in  to  protect  the  Southern  States 
from  a  capitation  tax  on  negro  .slaves  and  a  land  tax 
without  regard  to  value,  which  taxes  would  have  rested 
onerously  and  inequitably  upon  the  South. 

That  tliey  so  went  in  and  w^ere  so  understood  to 
have  gone  in  by  men  of  the  time  is  not  open  to  ques- 
tion. It  was  so  declared  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
Fnited  States  in  ITOG,  and  l)y  a  court  in  which  two  of  i 
the  four  members  who  thus  early  gave  a  judicial  in- 
terpretation of  the  meaning  of  direct  taxes  had  been 
members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  case  upon  w^hich  this  question  was  passed  upon 
in  1T9C)  arose  over  the  imposition  of  a  tax  "  upon  all 
carriages  for  the  conveyance  of  persons."  It  was  not 
only  a  tax  imposed  upon  carriages  to  be  let  out  on  hire 
and  a  tax  which  exacted  from  the  owner  of  carriages 
in  the  first  place  might  be  exacted  by  him  from  hirers 
or  passengers  in  the  second  as  increased  hire  or  fare, 
but  a  tax  upon  carriages  kept  for  private  use.  In 
short,  in  the  modern  sense  it  was  a  direct  tax — cer- 
tainly so  far  as  private  carriages  were  concerned — 
upon  personal  property.  But  the  court  unanimously 
decided  that  such  tax  was  not  direct  within  the  inean- 
ing  of  the  Constitution;  that  in  declaring  that  direct 
taxes  should  be  apportioned  according  to  population 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  had  reference  only  to 
capitation  and  land  taxes;  that  the  purpose  was  to  pre- 
vent any  abuse  of  the  rule  of  uniformity  in  the  imposi- 
tion of  taxation;  that  no  tax  could  be  considered  a 
direct  tax  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  that 
could  not  be  apportioned  so  as  to  be  uniform  and  just. 
And  as  a  carriage  tax  could  not  be  laid  by  the  rule  of 
apportionment  w'ithout  very  great  inequality  and  in- 
justice, it  was  held  that  it  was  not  a  direct  tax  in  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution,  which  Avas  framed  on 
principles  of  equality  and  justice  and  uniformity. 


270  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

Thus  said  Justice  Chase  in  his  opinion,  and  as  an  ex- 
ample of  the  inequity  of  a  carriage  tax  if  laid  by  ap- 
portionment, he  cited  this  imaginary  caf-.e:  "  Suppose,"' 
he  said,  "  two  states,  equal  in  census,  to  pay  $80,000 
each  by  a  tax  on  carriages,  and  in  one  state  there  are 
1,000  carriages  and  in  the  other  10,000.  The  owners 
of  carriages  in  one  state  would  pay  ten  times  the  tax 
of  owners  in  the  other.  A,  in  one  state,  would  pay  for 
his  carriage  $8,  and  B,  in  the  other  state,  would  pay 
for  his  carriage  $80."  And,  he  added,  it  was  absurd  to 
suppose  that  the  Convention  contemplated  the  laying 
of  taxes  by  apportionment  in  any  case  where  it  would 
lead  to  such  inequality.  The  laying  of  an  income  tax 
by  apportionment  would  be  equally  inequitable,  and  so 
an  income  tax  must  be  ruled  without  the  meaning  of 
a  direct  tax  as  understood  by  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution. Justice  Chase  further  added  that  he  was  in- 
clined to  think  "  that  the  direct  taxes  contemplated 
by  the  Constitution  are  only  two,  to  wit,  a  capitation 
or  poll  tax,  simply  without  regard  to  property,  profes- 
sion or  any  other  circumstance,  and  a  tax  on  land." 

But  even  more  to  the  point  are  these  remarks  of 
Justice  Patterson  in  the  same  case  and  as  throwing 
clear  light  upon  the  meaning  of  direct  taxes  as  used 
in  the  Constitution  and  the  intent  of  the  framers  of 
that  instrument.  "  I  never  entertained  a  doubt,"  he 
declared,  "  that  the  principle,  I  will  not  say  only,  ob- 
jects that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  contem- 
plated as  falling  within  the  rule  of  apportionment 
were  a  capitation  tax  and  a  tax  on  land.  Local  con- 
siderations and  the  particular  circumstances  and  rela- 
tive situation  of  the  states  naturally  lead  to  this  view 
of  the  subject.  The  provision  was  made  in  favor  of 
the  Southern  States.  They  possessed  a  large  number 
of  slaves;  they  had  extensive  tracts  of  territory,  thinly 
settled  and  not  very  productive.       A  majority  of  the 


CONSTITUTIONALITY   OF    AN  INCOME  TAX.        271 

states  had  but  few  slaves,  and  several  of  them  a  lim- 
ited territory,  well  settled  and  in  a  high  state  of  culti- 
vation. The  Southern  States,  if  no  provision  had  been 
introduced  in  the  Constitution,  would  have  been 
wholly  at  the  mercy  of  the  other  States.  ("on<^ress.  in 
such  case,  might  tax  slaves,  at  discretion  or  arbitrarily, 
and  land  in  every  part  of  the  Union  after  the  same 
rate  or  measure;  so  much  a  head  in  the  first  instance, 
and  so  much  an  acre  in  the  second.  Tu  guard  against 
imposilioii  in  these  particulars,  was  the  reason  of  in- 
troducing the  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  directs 
that  representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  states  according  to  their  respective 
numbers."' 

And  Patterson  knew  whereof  he  spoke,  for  he  sat 
in  the  Constitutional  Convention,  and  took  part  in  its 
making  as  a  delegate  from  New  Jersey.  He  further 
strenuously  asserted  that  the  restricted  meaning  of 
direct  taxes,  narrowed  down  by  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution to  just  two,  capitation  and  land  taxes, 
"  ought  not  to  be  extended  by  construction "  for 
"  numbers  do  not  afford  a  just  estimate  or  rule  of 
wealth.  It  is,  indeed,  a  very  uncertain  and  incompe- 
tent sign  of  opulence."  Justices  Iredell  and  Wilson 
expressed  themselves  as  of  the  same  opinion,  and  such 
was  also  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Ellsworth,  who 
was  sworn  into  office  on  the  day  the  decision  was  an- 
nounced, but  took  no  part  in  the  judgment,  as  he  had 
not  heard  the  argument. 

Thus  we  see  how  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  adjudged  the  meaning  of  direct  taxes  as  used 
ill  the  Constitution  as  early  as  1796.  Thus  we  see  the 
opinion  of  a  court  as  to  the  intent  of  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution,  a  court  that  was  in  position  to  de- 
clare that  intent  with  accuracy,  a  court  holding  a  posi- 
tion that  no  court  can  now  attain,  a  position  that 


272  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

should  leave  the  decree  of  the  court  unquestioned,  for 
upon  the  court  sat  two  men — Patterson,  of  New  Jer- 
sey, and  Wilson,  of  Pennsylvania — who  had  taken  a 
prominent  part  in  the  Constitutional  Convention.  And 
this  decision  was  upheld,  when  its  justice  was  ques- 
tioned it  was  affirmed,  for  nearly  a  century. 

The  most  significant  affirmation  as  bearing  directly 
upon  the  question  now  under  discussion  was  the  unani- 
mous affirmation  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  income  taxes  of  the  Civil  War. 
Handing  down  the  opinion  of  the  court.  Justice 
Swayne,  alluding  to  the  observations  of  the  judges  on 
the  famous  carriage  tax  case  which  w^e  have  given, 
affirmed  that  "  It  was  well  held  that  where  such  evils 
would  attend  the  apportionment  of  a  tax,  the  Consti- 
tution could  not  have  intended  that  an  apportionment 
should  be  made.  This  view  applies  with  even  greater 
force  to  the  tax  in  question  in  this  case.  Where  the 
population  is  large  and  the  incomes  few  and  small, 
it  would  he  intolerably  oppressive."  Then  speaking 
for  the  whole  court  Justice  Swayne  quoted  with  ap- 
proval Chancellor  Kent,  to  the  effect  that  "  The  bet- 
ter opinion  seems  to  be  that  the  direct  taxes  contem- 
plated by  the  Constitution  were  only  two,  viz.,  a  capi- 
tation or  poll  tax  and  a  tax  on  land."  Then  citing 
several  other  authorities  to  the  same  effect  he  added, 
speaking  for  the  court:  "We  are  not  aware  that  any 
writer  .  .  .  has  expressed  a  view  of  the  subject  different 
from  that  of  these  authors.  Our  conclusions  are,  that 
direct  taxes,  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution, 
are  only  capitation  taxes,  as  expressed  in  that  instru- 
ment, and  taxes  on  real  estate  and  that  the  tax  of 
which  the  plaintiff'  in  error  complains  (the  income 
tax)  is  within  the  category  of  an  excise  or  duty." 

The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  1895,  revers- 
ing all  previous  rulings  of  the  court,  setting  aside  all 


CONSTITUTIONALITY    Or    AN    INCOME    TAX.         2T3 

precedents,  reopening  a  (question  that  had  been  looked 
upon  as  closed  by  a  long  and  unbroken  line  of  de- 
cisions was  nothing  less  than  revolutionary.  No  won- 
der Justice  Harlan  in  a  dissenting  opinion  declared 
with  something  more  than  the  judicial  calm  of  the 
bench  that  "  If  this  new  theory  of  the  Constitution, 
as  I  believe  it  to  be,  if  this  new  departure  from  that 
safe  way  marked  out  by  the  fathers  and  so  long  fol- 
lowed by  this  court,  is  justified  by  the  fundamental 
law,  the  American  people  cannot  too  soon  amend  their 
Constitution." 

As  the  Constitution  is  now  interpreted  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  is  precluded  from  collecting  a 
uniform  income  tax.  If  it  see  fit  to  put  a  tax  on  the 
income  of  the  landlord,  or  mortgage  holder  or  bond 
holder  it  must  impose  that  tax  not  according  to  the 
size  of  incomes,  but  according  to  the  rule  of  apportion- 
ment among  the  States.  And  this  the  American  Con- 
gress cannot  see  fit  to  do  unless  it  see  fit  to  be  unjust. 
As  Justice  Harlan  said:  under  the  income  tax  decision 
of  1895,  Congress  "  cannot  touch  the  income  from  real 
estate,  nor  the  income  from  personal  property,  in- 
vested or  uninvested,  except  by  apportionment  among 
the  states  on  a  basis  of  population."  And  he  added, 
'"  Under  that  system  the  people  of  a  state,  containing 
1,000,000  of  inhabitants,  who  receive  annally  $20,000.- 
000  of  income  from  real  and  personal  property,  would 
pay  no  more  than  would  be  exacted  from  the  people  of 
another  state,  having  the  same  number  of  inhabitants, 
but  who  receive  income  from  the  same  kind  of  prop- 
erty of  only  $5,000,000."  Under  the  present  interpre- 
tation of  the  Constitution  Congress  can  indeed  tax  the 
income  of  the  industrious,  of  the  laborer  and  clerk,  of 
the  salaried  man,  of  the  business  man,  the  merchant, 
the  manufacturer,  the  farmer,  turning  his  brain  and 
enterprise  into  money.     But  the  income  tax  that  taxed 


274  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

the  industrious  and  not  the  drones  of  society  would  be 
unjust  and  cannot  be  thought  of. 

Therefore  shall  the  income  tax  case  be  reopened. 
But  to  reopen  it  before  the  present  court  would  re- 
sult in  the  aecomplishnient  of  no  good  end.  It  woiiI(i 
but  result  in  the  affirnuition  of  tbc  unjust  decision  of 
1895.  We  must  then  reopen  the  case  before  a  court, 
superior  to  the  Supreme  Court.  We  must  appeal  the 
((ucstion  to  the  people  who  are  the  source  of  all  power, 
all  law.  We  the  people  of  the  United  States  made  the 
fundamental  law  which  is  held  by  our  Supreme  Court 
to  mean  something  that  our  forefathers  did  not  in- 
tend it  to  mean.  But  what  we  the  people  have  done 
Ave  the  people  can  undo.  There  is  a  court  superior  to 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  to  that  court  the  appeal  must 
be  taken.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  that 
proscribes  resort  to  the  justest  of  taxes  must  be  re- 
versed. The  court  will  not  reverse  its  decision  unless 
we  can  change  the  personnel  and  so  the  complexion, 
and  this  can  only  be  done,  within  reasonable  time,  l)y 
increasing  the  number  of  Supreme  Court  justices  and 
packing  the  court  as  the  court  was  packed  to  reverse 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  a  generation  ago. 

But  this  is  not  the  way  to  secure  a  reversal.  The 
way  to  secure  a  reversal  is  for  the  people  to  overrule 
the  Supreme  Court,  to  amend  the  Constitution  so  that 
a  Supreme  Court  cannot  hold  an  income  tax  unconsti- 
tutional. But  there  is  a  better  way  to  accomplish  this 
than  by  directly  amending  the  Constitution  so  as  to 
give  Congress  specific  power  to  impose  an  income  tax. 
That  better  way  is  to  amend  the  Constitution  by  pro- 
viding that  the  people  shall  be  accorded  the  right  to 
vote  on  any  measure  passed  by  their  Congress  and  ap- 
prove or  veto  it  by  their  vote,  and  the  further  right  to 
vote  upon  any  measure  that  a  considerable  percentage 
of  the  people  may  initiate  by  petition,  and  so  legislate 


CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF    AN    INCOAIE    TAX.         275 

over  the  heads  of  their  representatives,  and  by  further 
providing  that  any  measure  thus  directly  voted  upon 
and  approved  by  the  people,  whether  initiated  by  Con- 
gress or  the  people,  shall  be  considered  fundamental 
law,  and  therefore  above  revision  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  above  revision  because  ])assed  upon  by  a  su- 
perior court,  a  court  from  which  the  Supreme  Court 
derives  its  power,  its  being:  The  people  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  by  pressing  such  amendment  that  wo 
should  reopen  the  income  tax  case,  it  is  before  the  peo- 
ple that  we  must  reopen  it. 

To  the  question:  Shall  we  reopen  the  income  tax 
case?  there  can  be  but  one  answer:  As  justice  is  eter- 
nal assuredly  yes,  but  last  it  must  be  reopened  before 
a  higher  court  than  the  court  that  passed  upon  it;  be- 
fore a  court  unswayable  by  the  prejudices  or  the  pas- 
sions or  the  interests  of  a  class,  a  court  swayed  l)y  in- 
fluences, by  interests  bearing  not  upon  the  few,  hut 
common  to  the  majority  of  our  ])eople;  in  a  word,  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States  who  constitute  the 
court  of  last  resort. 


THE  COURTS  INCITING  TO  RIOT. 

[August  14th,  1897.  — The  Great   Bituminous  Coal  Strike  of  that   year  being 
llien  at  its. height.] 

IT  is  the  duty  of  the  courts  to  interpret  the  laws,  it 
is  their  duty,  with  the  assistance  of  Jurymen 
chosen  from  amo-ng  those  in  private  life,  to  try 
those  charged  with  infractions  of  the  law  and  to  mete 
out  to  those  found  guilty  such  punishments  as  may 
he  provided  by  law.  It  is  not  their  duty  to  either 
make  the  laws  or  to  provide  penalties  for  infractions 
of  the  laws.  That  duty  belongs  to  the  legislative 
branch  of  the  government,  not  to  the  judicial,  and  the 
enforcement  of  the  laws,  the  prevention  of  crime,  the 
preservation  of  the  public  peace  is  entrusted  to  the  ex- 
ecutive. It  is  the  duty  of  the  executive  authorities, 
federal,  state  and  county,  to  preserve  the  peace  in 
their  respective  s])heres;  it  is  their  duty  to  take  steps 
for  the  prevention  of  crime,  and  it  is  not  the  righi 
of  the  courts  to  say  what  those  steps  shall  be. 

Those  entrusted  with  the  responsibility  for  the  pre- 
vention of  crime,  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  take  steps 
to  prevent  one  man  or  body  of  men  from  trespassing 
on  the  rights  or  property  of  another,  must  be  left  free 
to  take  what  steps  they  consider  necessary.  It  is  for 
them  to  decide  what  steps  are  necessary,  not  for  the 
courts.  For  the  courts  to  assume  this  right,  to  assume 
the  right  to  direct  the  executive  authorities  to  take 
this  and  that  step  for  the  preservation  of  the  public 
peace  and  the  execution  of  the  laws,  for  them  to  over- 
ride the  judgment  of  the  executive  authorities  as  to 
what  steps  are  necessary  and  to  direct  the  taking  of 
steps  that,  in  the  judgment  of  those  specially  entrusted 


THE    COURTS    IN'CITIXG    TO    lUOT.  277 

with  the  preservation  of  the  public  peace,  are  calcu- 
lated not  to  preserve  the  peace,  but  to  excite  jjassions, 
incite  to  riot  and  lead  to  a  breaking  of  the  laws,  is  a 
grave  and  dangerous  abuse  of  judicial  power.  It  is 
nothing  less  than  a  usurpation  of  executive  power  by 
the  judiciary.  And  when  the  courts  go  still  farther 
in  this  haljit  of  directing  the  executive  authorities  as 
to  the  manner  in  which  to  fulfill  their  duties,  and  di- 
rect such  authorities  to  deny  to  large  bodies  of  our 
citizens  rights  that  have  not  lieen  denied  to  thoiu  hy 
statute  lav\',  we  have  a  usurpation  of  legislative  func- 
tions by  the  courts  as  well,  an  overriding  of  laws 
made  by  the  legislature  with  court-made  laws.  Such 
exercise,  by  the  courts,  of  a  power  that  is  denied  to 
them,  i.-?  an  infraction  of  the  law,  a  Itreaking  of  the 
law  by  the  courts  even  though  the  courts  decree  it 
not  to  be. 

All  rights  that  are  not  s})ecifically  surrendered  by 
our  people,  through  their  representatives,  to  the  fed- 
eral or  state  or  municipal  governments  to  be  exercised 
by  such  central  authority  for  the  common  weal,  are  re- 
served to  the  individual.  Iiights  that  the  individual 
or  the  majority  of  individuals  have  not  voluntarily  sur- 
rendered to  a  common  authority  cannot  he  denied  to 
the  individual.  No  court  can  rightly  deny  to  our  peo- 
ple rights  they  have  not  denied  to  themselves.  For 
the  courts  to  do  so  is  a  usurpation.  Such  is  the  theory 
of  a  government  of,  by  and  for  the  people. 

If  the  courts  are  left  free  to  deny  the  right  of  men 
to  exercise  rights  that  they  have  never  delegated,  and 
hence  are  inherent  in  the  individual,  we  have  a  gov- 
ernment by  the  courts  and  those  influencing  the 
courts,  not  a  government  by  the  people.  It  should  be 
remembered  that  all  powers  vested  in  tlie  courts  are 
derived  from  the  people,  that  powers  that  have  not 
been  granted  cannot  be  rightly  exercis(>d  by  the  courts 


278  THE   GREAT   ISSUER. 

or  the  executive.  To  do  so  is  usurpation,  for  rule  i)y 
"divine  riglit "  is  not  reco<?nized  in  xVmerica — at  least 
not  recognized  in  the  constitution  we  established  for 
ourselves. 

Usurpation  of  executive  and  legislative  functions  ])y 
the  courts,  and  hence  rule  l^y  the  courts,  means  an  ap- 
proach to  rule  hy  an  oligarchy,  a  loss  of  power  on  the 
part  of  the  people  to  direct  their  own  affairs,  for  the 
further  the  servants  of  the  people  happen  to  be  re- 
moved from  the  necessity  of  rendering  account  to  the 
people  the  more  subject  do  they  become  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  few,  and  the  less  subject  to  the  influence  of 
the  many.  And  our  judges,  of  ail  our  servants,  are 
most  distant  from  the  people,  and  hence  most  subject 
to  the  blandishments  of  oligarchy. 

Men  are  but  mortal,  and  the  judicial  ermine  confers 
no  perfection.  AYoe  to  the  Eepublic  if  ever  the  doc- 
trine gains  acceptance  that  the  courts  can  do  no  wrong. 

We  submit  to  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  we  accept 
the  laws  as  the  courts  interpret  them,  even  though  we 
think  such  interpretations,  such  decisions,  wrong.  As 
free  men  we  pride  ourselves  on  submitting  to  the  find- 
ings of  our  courts.  Yet.  acceptance  of  the  interpreta- 
tions of  the  courts  is  not  to  be  taken  as  an  admission 
that  the  courts  are  right  and  the  people  wrong,  that 
the  judgment  of  the  unskilled  many  is  wrong,  the 
judgment  of  the  trained  few  right.  We  cheerfully  ac- 
cept the  interpretations  of  the  courts,  fully  believing 
that  if  such  interpretations  make  laws  obnoxious  to 
the  majority  such  laws  will  be  repealed,  or  amended, 
and  others  passed,  so  that  in  the  end  the  people  may 
have  their  way  and  rule,  so  that  the  judgment  of  the 
people  as  to  what  is  right  and  just,  not  that  which 
the  courts  adjudge,  may  become  the  law  of  the  land. 
In  short,  the  wnll  of  the  people,  not  the  will  of  the 
courts,  is  or  should  be  supreme. 


THE    COUIJTS    IXCITIXG    TO    KIOT.  2?9 

There  are  constitutional  checks  in  )nany  instances 
to  such  expressions  of  the  will  of  the  people  and  to  the 
enforcement  of  that  will,  but  those  checks  which  the 
people  saw  fit  to  impose  upon  themselves  the  people 
can  remove.  Thus  we  have  the  courts,  both  state  and 
national,  declaring  this  and  that  law  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional, and  thus  standing  in  the  way  of  the  people  hav- 
ing their  way,  of  the  enforcement  of  such  laws  as  the 
people  may  deem  wise  and  just.  But  such  check  is 
not  a  checkmate,  for  constitutions,  as  well  as  laws, 
may  be  amended  by  our  people,  and  an  obnoxious  in- 
hibition found  in  a  constitution  struck  from  that  in- 
strument just  as  an  obnoxious  law,  made  so  by  the 
decision  of  a  court,  may  be  struck  from  the  statute 
books. 

True,  a  constitution  cannot  be  amended  as  readily 
as  a  mere  law;  there  are  certain  forms  put  in  for  de- 
lay and  the  securing  of  mature  deliberation  that  must 
be  gone  through  with,  but  in  the  end  a  constitution 
can  be  amended,  though  it  may  require  much  more 
than  a  nuijority  of  our  people  to  amend  the  Federal 
Constitution.  A  constitution  differs  only  from  a  law 
in  tliat  the  former  instrument  has  been  submitted  to 
the  people  for  their  acceptance,  and  by  their  vote  ap- 
])roved,  while  the  latter  takes  effect  without  being  rati- 
fied by  the  people.  Both  are  framed  by  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  people,  but  the  constitution  thus  framed 
must  be  passed  upon  by  the  people  before  taking 
effect;  the  law  becomes  effective  upon  being  passed  by 
the  representatives  of  the  people.  Thus  it  is  that  a 
constitution  derives  a  double  authority  from  the  peo- 
ple, and  thus  is  rightly  considered  as  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land.  And  being  framed  with  more  care,  and 
having  been  given  the  force  of  expressed  popular  ap- 
proval, it  is  not  to  be  put  lightly  aside  by  the  simple 
act  of  the  representatives  of  the  people.     It  must  be 


280  THI-:    (JRKAT    ISSUES. 

amended  iilter  the  fasiiiou  in  which  it  was  made;  pow- 
ers must  be  withdrawn  or  changed  by  those  who  gave 
them. 

In  short,  wc  have  in  many  of  our  constitutions  a 
narrowed  application  of  the  principle  of  the  referen- 
dum. Extend  this  jirinciple  to  legislation  of  a  gen- 
eral character,  and  we  will  have  laws  that,  deriving 
their  force  directly  from  the  people,  will  be  above  con- 
stitutional restrictions,  for  they  will  be  the  equal  of 
constitutional  law,  and  which,  being  derived  directly 
from  the  people,  can  be  only  repealed  with  the  direct 
consent  of  the  people. 

As  we  have  said,  constitutional  checks  to  the  carry- 
ing out  of  the  will  of  our  people  are  not  insurmount- 
able, for  when  a  constitution  is  declared  by  the  courts 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  enactment  of  some  legisla- 
tion that  the  people  deem  just  and  wise,  such  consti- 
tution can  be  amended  and  the  inhiliition  removed, 
though  the  machinery  may  be  somewhat  cumbersome. 

So  it  is  that  we  accept  the  decisions  of  the  courts 
for  the  very  reason  that  they  are  not  final  if  they  seem 
wrong  to  our  people.  We  accept  them  as  free  men, 
though  they  may  restrict  our  liberties,  may  take  from 
us  rights  we  never  surrendered,  knowing  that  there  is 
a  higher  court  to  which  we  may  appeal,  the  court  of 
the  whole  people,  which  is  the  court  of  last  resort.  As 
long  as  this  principle  is  recognized  a  liberty-loving 
people  will  be  content  with  its  courts. 

But  Avhen  the  courts  exceed  the  authority  which 
they  have  derived  from  the  people,  do  not  confine 
themselves  to  the  interpretation  of  constitutional  and 
statute  law,  do  not  confine  themselves  to  nullifying 
this  or  that  law  on  the  ground  that  it  is  unconstitu- 
tional, and  which  the  people  have  ever  in  their  power 
to  make  constitutional  by  changing  the  constitution, 
but  spread  out  in  new  fields,  assume  the  right  to  make 


THE    COURTS    IXCITIXG    TO    RIOT.  281 

laws,  to  usurp  powers  granted  to  the  legislative  branch 
of  the  government  and  dictate  to  the  executive,  act  as 
if  they  derived  authority  by  divine  right,  not  from  the 
people,  and  are  superior  to  the  people,  what  are  we  to 
say?  What,  but  that  the  will  of  the  people  is  no 
longer  supreme,  that  the  people  are  no  longer  sover- 
eign, that  we  no  longer  have  a  government  by  the  peo- 
])le,  but  by  the  courts.  When  the  courts  break  the  I 
laws  by  taking  to  themselves  not  only  powers  not 
L-ranted  them,  but  powers  denied  them,  when  they  set 
themselves  up  as  superior  to  those  from  whom  they 
derive  their  power,  we  must  look  to  the  people  to 
break  the  court-made  laws,  for  under  such  laws,  under 
such  usurpation  of  authority,  they  cannot  live  con- 
tentedly. 

And  of  such  usurpations,  such  exceeding  of  author- 
ity, have  our  courts  been  guilty.  We  have  had  strik- 
ing examples  during  the  past  few  weeks  of  the  assump- 
tion of  executive  as  well  as  of  legislative  powers  on  the 
part  of  our  courts.  We  have  seen  the  courts  of  West- 
ern Pennsylvania  and  West  Virginia,  both  state  and 
federal,  issuing  injunctions  restraining  men  from  the 
exercise  of  rights  that  they  have  a  perfect  legal  right 
to  exercise.  We  have  seen  the  courts  deny  to  the 
striking  coal  miners  the  rights  of  assembly  and  free 
s])eech,  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  public  highways, 
the  right  to  speak  with  the  miners  still  at  work  and 
plead  with  them  to  join  the  strike.  We  have  further 
seen  the  courts  assume  to  direct  the  different  county 
sheriffs,  representatives  of  the  executive  branch  of  the 
government,  as  to  the  steps  they  should  take  to  pre- 
vent violence,  to  prevent  the  breaking  of  the  law.  Tho 
directions  given  by  the  courts  may  have  been  in  accord 
with  the  judgment  of  the  different  sheriffs  as  to  the 
proper  steps  to  take  to  guard  against  infractions  of 
the  law.  against  one  man  trespassing  on  the  rights  of 


282  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

another.  But  the  courts  had  no  right  to  issue  those 
directions,  each  sheriff  should  have  been  left  free  to 
act,  free  to  take  such  steps  as  he  deemed  necessary  to 
preserve  the  ])oacc,  not  forced  to  take  steps  that  the 
courts  declared  necessary,  and  which  are  calculated  to 
incite  to  riot,  not  to  preserve  peace.  The  sheriffs,  not 
the  courts,  are  charged  with  keeping  the  peace. 

The  people  of  Pennsylvania  and  West  Virginia 
never  surrendered  their  rights  of  free  assembly,  free 
speech,  free  use  of  the  public  highways  to  the  courts. 
And  not  having  surrendered  those  rights  the  courts 
have  no  right  to  deny  to  the  people  the  right  to  exer- 
cise such  rights.  The  striking  miners  have  a  perfect 
right  to  exercise  such  rights  and  for  the  courts  to  say 
they  have  not  and  make  the  exercise  of  such  rights  a 
penal  offense,  make  acts  penal  that  are  not  made  penal 
by  statute  law,  is  a  usurpation  of  legislative  authority. 
It  is  more.  It  is  an  exercise  of  authority  granted  by 
the  people  to  no  one. 

It  may  be  said,  it  is  said  by  the  New  York  "  Times," 
that  "  the  existence,  in  a  neighborhood,  of  a  large 
number  of  idle  men  who  think  they  have  been  ill- 
treated,  is  of  itself  a  threat  against  the  public  peace." 
It  may  well  be  so,  especially  when  interested  parties, 
working  in  the  interest  of  the  mine  operators,  work- 
ing to  bring  about  violence,  thus  alienate  public  sym- 
pathy from  the  strikers  and  make  an  excuse  for  the 
calling  out  of  the  militia,  for  the  suppression  of  the 
strike,  seek  to  introduce  whiskey  into  the  camps  of 
the  strikers.  The  use  of  intoxicants  is  strictly  pro- 
hibited by  the  strike  leaders  to  their  followers,  and  no 
liquor  is  allowed  in  the  camps  of  the  strikers,  for  the 
presence  of  liquor  in  the  camps,  the  danger,  the  cer- 
tainty of  intoxication,  loss  of  self-control  and  violence-, 
would  be  fatal  to  the  strike.  But  regulations  the 
strike  leaders  have  made  in  order  to  prevent  infrac- 


THE    COURTS    INCITING   TO    RIOT.  1^83 

tions  of  law,  others  seek  to  bring  to  naught.  And 
those  others  are  interested  in  bringing  about  vio- 
lence. They  may  not  work  at  the  behest  of  the  opera- 
tors, but  they  work  in  their  interest.  We  know  this 
from  the  fact  that  barrels  of  whiskey  have  been 
shipped  to  the  miners'  camps  at  the  De  Armitt  mines 
from  Braddock,  that  they  have  been  paid  for  and  ail 
shipping  charges  settled  at  the  Braddock  end.  80  it 
is  evident  the  sender  of  the  whiskey  could  not  have 
sent  it  with  a  view  to  profit  from  its  sale,  for  the  whis- 
key sent  must  have  been  a  dead  loss  to  the  sender. 
The  profit  ho])ed  for  must  have  been  an  indirect  profit, 
none  other  than  the  breaking  up  of  the  strike  through 
violence. 

To  rcj)eat,  we  may  admit  that  the  existence  in  a 
ncighl)orhood  of  a  large  body  of  idle  men  who  have 
been  aggrieved,  may  be  of  itself  a  menace  to  the  public 
peace.  But  whose  duty  is  it  to  say  whether  it  is  or 
no?  Tt  is  the  sheriff's,  not  the  court's.  The  existence 
of  such  assemblies  is  no  occasion  for  the  launching  of 
injunctions  by  the  courts,  penalizing  those  who  take 
part  in  such  assemblies.  It  is  for  the  sheriff  to  say 
whether  such  assemblies  are  a  menace  or  not,  it  is  for 
him  to  disbaTid  them  if  they  are,  it  is  for  him  to  pre- 
vent the  nuirching  of  miners  on  the  public  highways, 
read  the  riot  act  commanding  them  to  disperse  if  he 
thinks  things  have  gone  to  that  extreme.  It  is  not  for 
the  courts  to  supersede  the  sheriff  and  tell  him  when 
jind  where  there  is  danger  of  outbreak.  The  sheriff 
on  the  ground  must  be  his  own  judge.  lie  has  author- 
ity to  command  riotous  assemblies  to  disperse,  he  is  the 
judge  as  to  when  assemblies  of  men  have  become  riot- 
ous; the  courts  have  no  such  authority.  So  long  as 
public  meetings  are  conducted  peacefully  and  with 
peaceful  intent,  so  long  as  there  is  no  inciting  to  vio- 
lence, neither  the  sheriff'  nor  anyone  else  has  a  right  to 
interfere. 


284  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

Yet  the  courts  have  interfered.  They  have  issued 
injunctions  denying  to  the  striking  miners  the  right 
to  approach  those  mines  that  are  still  in  operation 
with  a  view  to  induce  the  working  miners  to  strike. 
The  strikers  have  been  denied  the  right  to  use  the  pub- 
lic highways  leading  to  those  mines,  denied  the  right 
to  plead  with  the  Avorking  miners  as  they  are  on  their 
way  to  or  from  work  to  come  out  on  strike,  denied 
the  right  to  hold  meetings  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
mines  that  are  being  operated,  denied  these  rights  on 
the  ground  that  their  exercise  would  interfere  with 
the  working  of  the  mines,  on  the  ground  that  such  ex- 
ercise would  be  prone  to  lead  to  violence. 

But  why  should  the  courts  ever  be  quick  to  see  any 
trespassing  of  the  strikers  on  the  rights  of  the  opera- 
tors, and  be  blind  and  deaf  when  the  operators  tres- 
pass on  the  rights  of  the  strikers?  True,  the  presence 
of  the  striking  miners  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
working  mines  is  calculated  to  interfere  with  the  work- 
ing of  those  mines,  calculated  to  bring  out  the  miners 
on  strike  and  shut  down  the  mines,  hat  it  is  equally 
true  that  the  efforts  of  the  operators  to  fill  the  places 
of  the  strikers  interfere  with  the  right  of  the  strikers 
to  a  living  wage.  And  if  the  strikers  are  denied  the 
right  to  argue  with  those  about  to  fill  their  places,  or 
have  taken  their  places,  refused  the  opportunity  to 
plead  with  them,  show  them  that  by  working  they  will 
take  bread  from  the  mouths  of  their  fellows,  and  lead 
to  the  degradation  of  the  whole  mining  population, 
how  can  the  striking  miners  enforce  their  right  to  a 
living  wage? 

To  deny  the  right  of  the  strikers  to  plead  with  their 
fellows  at  work,  to  order  them  to  a  distance  from 
which  they  can  neither  make  themselves  heard  nor 
seen,  so  that  they  may  not  have  the  opportunity  t<i 
plead  with  others  not  to  take  their  places,  is  to  deny 


THE    CUUKTS    INCITING    TO    lUOT.  285 

them  the  right  to  make  the  strike  effective  so  as  to 
force  the  operators  to  comply  with  their  demands;  it 
is  to  interfere  with  their  right  to  work.  And  the  right 
of  the  miners  to  work,  to  refuse  to  work  at  the  wages 
offered  by  the  operators  and  endeavor  to  prevail  upon 
other  men  not  to  take  their  places,  is  just  as  sacred  as 
the  right  of  the  operators  to  work  their  mines,  to  en- 
deavor to  prevail  upon  men  to  take  the  strikers'  places. 
If,  then,  the  courts  interfere  with  the  right  of  the 
strikers  to  assemble  around  the  approaches  to  the 
mines,  on  the  public  highways,  and  hold  meetings  with 
a  view  to  pleading  with  new  men  not  to  take  their 
places  and  break  the  strike,  they  should  prohibit  the 
operators  from  going  outside  and  endeavoring  to  hire 
new  men  to  take  the  places  of  the  strikers.  If  the 
strikers  are  to  be  prohilnted  from  leaving  their  neigh- 
borhoods in  order  to  bring  out  on  strike  men  at  other 
mines  than  their  own,  then  the  companies  should  be 
prohibited  from  going  outside  of  their  own  neighbor- 
hoods to  hire  miners  to  take  the  places  of  the  strikers. 
And  now  as  to  the  assemblies  of  striking  miners  be- 
ing a  menace  to  the  public  peace,  for  this  is  a  second 
ground  on  which  the  injunctions  prohibiting  such  as- 
semblies have  been  launched  against  the  strikers. 
Such  meetings  are  no  more  a  menace  to  the  public 
peace  than  the  importation  by  the  companies  of  miners 
to  take  the  place  of  the  strikers.  It  is  said  that  the 
companies  have  a  right  to  import  miners.  This  is  so, 
but  so  have  the  strikers  the  right  to  assemble  and 
plead  with  those  imported  miners  not  to  go  to  work. 
The  miners  have  the  same  right  to  profit  by  their 
labor  as  the  operators  have  by  the  working  of  their 
mines.  The  strikers  no  more  menace  the  public  peace 
by  marching  on  the  public  highways  and  assembling 
in  the  vicinity  of  mines  that  the  operators  are  attempt- 
ing to  operate,  and  endeavoring  to  prevail  upon  the 


286  THK    GREAT    ISSUES. 

miners  thereabouts  and  that  tlie  operators  may  bring, 
not  to  go  into  the  mines,  than  do  the  operators  men- 
ace the  public  peace  when  they  import  bodies  of 
miners  to  take  the  places  of  the  strikers,  as  the  l)e  Ar- 
mitt  people  are  reported  as  endeavoring  to  do. 

Fiirther,  nothing  is  more  calculated  to  incite  to  riot 
than  the  lending  of  the  courts  to  the  operators  in  aii 
eifort  to  coerce  the  strikers  into  submission.  As  the 
"  United  Mine  Workers'  Journal  "  says: 

"How  long  the  people  will  quietly  submit  to  such 
coercion  remains  to  be  seen.  It  is,  however,  possible 
to  drive  them  to  the  point  of  exasperation  and  des- 
peration, and  it  appears  that  a  studied  effort  is  being 
made  in  West  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania  to  accom- 
plish that  end,  otherwise  there  is  no  need  for  injunc- 
tions or  deputies.  We  trust,  however,  that  the  miners 
will  be  on  their  guard  and  not  allow  themselves  to  be 
caught  in  the  trap  so  cunningly  laid  for  them,  but  that 
they  will  maintain  the  peace  in  the  future  as  in  the 
past,  and  continue  to  move  along  the  lines  that  can 
give  no  offense  to  the  general  public,  whose  sympathy 
is  so  manifestly  in  their  favor." 

We  cannot  better  add  further  comment  than  in  the 
words  of  the  New  York  "  Tribune,"  a  paper  which  we 
have  seldom  the  pleasure  of  quoting  with  approval,  but 
which  for  once  at  least  has  not  been  prejudiced  by  its 
surroundings: 

"  Nothing  is  so  likely  to  provoke  disorder,"  says  the 
"  Tribune,"  "  as  to  make  law  hateful.  That  is  a  fact 
which  the  coal  operators  who  are  engaged  in  a  contest 
with  their  workmen  and  the  officials  who  are  on  guard 
to  preserve  the  peace  should  not  forget.  Strikers  have 
rights  under  the  law — even  rights  the  exercise  of 
which  may  cause  mine  owners  inconvenience,  perhaps 


THP]    COURTS    IXriTTXG    TO    RIOT.  287 

unreasonable  loss.  The  strikers  have  so  far  main- 
tained exemplary  behavior.  They  \v^\e  kept  the 
peaee.  .  .  . 

"  It  is  the  height  of  unwisdom  for  anyljody  f*o  to  en- 
force the  law  in  their  ease  as  to  give  them  reasonable 
ground  to  feel  that  they  have  no  rights  anyhow,  and 
that  they  might  as  well  engage  in  riot  as  in  peacefid 
agitation. 

"  That  feeling,  we  fear,  is  likely  to  be  aroused  by 
the  injunction  granted  Ijy  Judge  Jackson  in  West  \'ir- 
ginia.  It  not  only  forbids  Eugene  A^.  Debs  from 
molesting  the  pro})erty  of  the  Monongah  Coal  Com- 
pany, but  also  to  approach  the  mines  to  ask  its  em- 
l)loyees  to  join  in  the  strike.  It  enjoins  him  from  in- 
terfering in  any  manner  whatever,  either  by  word  or 
deed,  in  the  company's  affairs.  Doubtless  Judge  Jack- 
son feared  a  riot  and  sincerely  thought  this  was  the 
best  way  to  prevent  one.  We  fear,  however,  that,  even 
if  he  lias  the  right  to  issue  such  an  injunction,  he  is 
making  for  riot  rather  than  against  it.  As  to  the 
right  itself,  we  think  a  layman  may  bo  excused  if  he 
([uestions  it.  As  Debs  says,  this  injunction  restrains 
him  from  walking  in  any  of  the  public  highways  lead- 
ing to  the  mines.  We  have  not,  as  our  readers  are 
aware,  a  high  opinion  of  Debs;  but  we  think  that  his 
vi(nv  is  correct  in  this  case.  A  man  has  a  right  to 
ask  another  to  stop  work;  he  has  a  right  to  speak  in 
public,  subject  to  the  ordinary  police  power  of  stop- 
ping disorderly  meetings.  .  .  . 

"  It  is  the  duty  of  the  courts  and  executive  officers 
to  compel  them  to  keep  the  peace,  no  matter  liow  just 
their  grievance  or  how  great  their  anger,  and  public 
opinion  w'ill  uphold  such  compulsion  even  to  the  last 
extremity.  But  it  is  not  the  business  of  any  branch  of 
government  to  interfere  with  any  citizen  in  the  peace- 
ful exercise  of  his  legal  right  of  free  speech  and  moral 


288  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

suasion  to  induce  others  to  an  action  not  unlawful  in 
itself." 

So  much  then  as  to  the  courts  and  their  injunctions. 
Instead  of  serving  to  preserve  the  peace  they  incite  to 
riot. 

Yet  it  is  indisputable  that  this  assembling  of  the 
coal  strikers  in  large  bodies,  marching  hither  and  yon 
iijid  camping  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  working 
mines  with  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  the  workers 
on  strike  and  preventing  the  filling  of  their  places,  the 
attitude  of  the  operators,  the  very  existence  of  the 
strike  leading  to  enhanced  prices  for  coal,  greatly  to 
the  injury  of  industrial  enterprises  caught  with  short 
supplies  of  fuel,  are  matters  of  grave  public  concern. 
The  public  is  interested  in  the  struggle,  it  is  interested 
in  the  settlement,  and  it  has  a  right  to  insist  on  an 
early  and  permanent  settlement.  And  such  settlement 
must  be  equita])le.  The  public  cannot  regard  such  a 
strike  any  more  than  it  can  a  railroad  strike  with  un- 
concern. It  cannot  remain  an  impassive  spectator,  for 
employers  and  employees  are  not  alone  interested  in 
such  struggle.  The  whole  public  is  intimately  inter- 
ested and  hurt  by  it. 

Those  engaged  in  coal  mining,  as  those  engaged  in 
railroading,  owe  duties  to  the  public  as  well  as  them- 
selves. And  to  a  fulfillment  of  those  duties  they 
should  be  held.  They  should  not  be  permitted  to  tie 
up  the  wheels  of  industry  as  sustained  strikes  ever 
must.  The  difficulties  between  the  coal  miners  and 
operators  concern  the  public,  and  this  being  so,  the 
public  should  have  the  right  to  enforce  their  settle- 
ment. The  whole  public  should  not  be  made  to  suffer 
by  others'  quarrels.  Such  disputes  should  be  made 
subject  to  compulsory  arbitration. 


ARE  THE  RIGHTS  OF  CAPITAL  SUPERIOR  TO 
THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN? 

[August  21st,  1897.] 

THE  part  taken  by  the  courts  in  the  pending  coal 
strike  must  leave  a  bad  taste  in  the  mouths  of 
our  wage-earning  population  that  cannot  fail  to 
do  much  to  destroy  that  respect  for  the  courts,  and 
faith  in  their  rulings,  which  is  so  indispensable  for  the 
successful  working  of  our  institutions.  It  is  only  by 
dispensing  justice,  by  securing  every  man,  never  mind 
how  meek  and  lowly,  from  the  aggressions  of  his  fel- 
lows, however  rich  or  powerful  such  aggressors  may 
happen  to  be,  only  by  protecting  every  man  in  his 
rights,  without  prejudice  or  preference,  that  we  can 
secure  that  cheerful  submission  to  the  law  which  is  the 
enemy  of  anarchy. 

It  is  by  establishing  a  regime  of  justice  and  equity, 
not  by  the  application  of  force,  that  we  must  strive  to 
constrain  our  people  to  live  up  to  the  law.  Such  is  the 
theory  of  our  government. 

If  we  dispense  justice  inequitably;  if  we  have  one 
law  for  the  powerful  and  one  for  the  poor;  if  we  ex- 
tend the  protecting  arm  of  government  to  the  few 
with  capital  but  withhold  it  from  the  many  who  sell 
their  labor;  indeed,  lend  the  strong  arm  of  the  law  to 
protect  those  who  are  preying  upon  the  fruits  of  oth- 
ers' labor  in  their  aggressions,  protect  them  in  crush- 
ing under  foot  and  despoiling  their  weaker  fellows,  we 
outrage  the  spirit  of  our  institutions.  Law  so  dis- 
pensed will  not  be  willingly,  cheerfully  submitted  to; 
it  may  be  accepted  by  fear,  it  will  not  be  accepted  by 


290  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

preference,  and  instead  of  having  that  cheerful  sub- 
mission to  law  that  is  the  enemy  of  anarchy,  we  will 
have  that  resentful  submission  that  is  the  breeder  of 
anarchy. 

In  a  monarchy  or  autocracy  where  the  spirit  of  men 
is  broken,  where  they  have  grown  accustomed  to  in- 
justice, and  where  they  have  not  the  courage  to  resist 
or  even  protest  when  their  rights  are  trampled  upon,  it 
may  do  to  depend  upon  force  to  beat  men  into  sub- 
mission to  law,  but  it  will  not  do  in  America,  at  least 
we  think  it  will  not  do;  it  certainly  will  not  do  if  the 
Eepublic  is  not  dead.  To  attempt  to  govern  by  force, 
not  by  justice,  to  dispense  justice  according  to  a  meas- 
ure of  riches  and  power,  will  bring  on  a  cataclysm. 
We  say  this  not  in  an  alarmist  vein. 

And  now  we  have  unmistakable  cidence  in  the  at- 
titude taken  by  the  courts  toward  the  coal  strike  that 
they  hold  the  right  to  employ  capital  to  be  more  sa- 
cred than  the  right  to  labor,  thnt  the  coal  operators 
come  first  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  and  that  where  the 
interests  of  operator  and  miner  conflict,  the  interests 
of  the  operator  must  be  upheld  and  guarded  over  by 
the  law  without  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  miners. 
So  we  have  men  asking:  Is  capital  alone  entitled  to  the 
protection  of  the  law^?  Have  men  no  rights  that  capi- 
tal must  respect? 

It  is  regrettable  that  men  should  be  asking  these 
questions,  regrettable  that  there  should  be  loss  of  re- 
spect for  the  courts  and  faith  in  their  rulipgs,  regret- 
table, not  indeed  from  the  mere  fact  that  men  should 
be  asking  these  questions,  but  from  the  fact  that  there 
should  be  occasion  for  the  asking.  Our  government 
cannot  run  on  smoothly  and  peacefully  when  the 
courts  are  held  in  disrespect,  when  they  are  looked 
upon  as  the  abettors  of  injustice  and  oppression,  not 
the  conservators  of  equity.     And   it   is   in   this   light 


RIGHTS    OF    CAPITAL    VS.    RIGHTS    OF    MAN.        291 

that  the  courts  arc  putting  themselves  by  taking  sides 
with  the  coal  operators  in  their  efforts  to  crush  out  the 
strike. 

We  repeat,  it  is  regrettable  that  the  courts  should 
put  themselves  in  this  light,  regrettable  that  they 
should  have  made  the  occasion  for  men  to  ask  if  the 
striking  miners  have  no  rights  that  the  operators  must 
respect,  for  if  there  are  no  rights  the  individually  pow- 
erful nmst  respect  in  dealing  with  those  who  are  indi- 
vidually weak,  l)ut  who  may  yet  show  themselves  to  be 
invincible  collectively,  the  many  can  have  no  respect 
for  the  law,  and  such  a  state  is  calculated  to  breed 
anarchy.  But  the  courts  having  put  themselves  in 
this  light,  having  made  the  occasion  for  men  to  ask: 
Is  capital  alone  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  law? 
have  men  no  rights  that  capital  must  respect?  it  is  not 
only  not  regrettable  but  most  fortunate  that  men 
should  ask  these  questions.  If  they  did  not  it  would 
augur  ill  for  the  life  of  our  Eepublic.  If  the  time 
ever  comes  when  our  people  no  longer  have  the  spirit 
to  protest  against  and  resist  injustice  and  aggression, 
liberty  will  be  crushed  under  foot  and  the  Republic 
will  die. 

Capital  is  entitled  to  protection,  all  men  are  entitled 
to  protection  in  the  enjoyment  or  use  of  the  wealth 
they  can  honestly  accumulate  so  long  as  they  do  not 
spend  it  or  use  it  to  the  detriment  of  society,  but  the 
mere  possession  of  wealth  should  not  put  the  strong 
arm  of  the  law  at  the  special  command  of  that  pos- 
sessor to  be  used  for  the  oppression  of  the  many. 
While  the  possession  of  wealth  commands  the  service 
of  the  courts  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  an  equita- 
ble dispensation  of  justice,  no  such  thing  as  good  gov- 
ernment, and  without  good  government  there  cannot 
be  a  peaceful  enforcement  of  the  law,  save  where  in- 


392  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

justice  has  been  handed  down  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration, and  there  will  ever  be  anarchy. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  our  courts  occupy,  or 
should  occupy,  a  sphere  of  their  own.  That  sphere  is 
the  interpretation  of  disputed  points  of  law,  the  set- 
tlement of  disputes  between  individuals  in  accordance 
with  the  rules  of  statute  law  and  the  dictates  of  equity 
and  the  conduct  of  the  trials  of  those  accused  with  in- 
fringing on  the  rights  of  others  so  as  to  secure  justice 
and  punishment  where  punishment  is  due.  To  secure 
the  conduct  of  such  trials  and  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes in  an  impartial  manner,  free  from  prejudice,  the 
judges  of  our  courts  have  been  given  a  long  tenure  of 
olhce  calculated  to  free  them  from  the  temptation  to 
judge,  not  after  the  rules  of  equity  and  so  as  to  secure 
justice,  but  in  accord  with  popular  prejudice,  and  so  as 
to  secure  popular  approval.  For  these  reasons  the 
judiciary  has,  in  the  theory  of  our  government,  been 
removed  by  method  of  selection  and  tenure  of  office 
from  close  accountability  to  the  people  and  in  a  meas- 
ure made  independent  of  and  superior  to  the  wishes  of 
the  people.  For  the  same  reasons  the  legislative  and 
executive  branches  of  the  government,  the  one  en- 
trusted to  record  and  the  other  to  execute  the  will  of 
the  people,  have  been  made  directly  responsible  to 
the  people,  and  the  tenure  of  office  made  short  so  as 
to  oblige  them  to  render  constant  account  of  their 
doings  to  those  who  entrusted  them  with  power,  so 
that  they  may  be  made  to  feel  their  dependence  on 
the  people,  and  so  that  the  people  may  have  the  power 
to  exert  direct  and  constant  influence  over  the  men 
they  choose  to  carry  out  their  will.  The  courts  have 
in  a  measure  been  made  independent  of  the  people  in 
belief  that  a  power  could  be  so  created  as  would  con- 
strain the  carrying  out  of  the  will  of  the  people  after 
an  equitable  manner. 


EIGHTiS    Oi"    CAPITAL    VS.    RIGHTS    OF    MAN.        293 

Thus  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government  was 
entrusted  to  record  and  the  executive  to  execute  the 
will  of  the  people,  while  the  judiciar^^  was  entrusted 
to  see  that  that  will  was  executed  so  as  to  preserve  the 
equities.  Thus  were  the  spheres  of  the  branches  of 
our  government  delineated,  thus  were  they  entrusted 
with  particular  functions,  thus  were  legislative  and 
executive  branches  held  to  strict  accountability  to  the 
will  of  the  people,  the  judiciary  made  in  a  measure 
independent  of  that  will.  Thus  have  the  places  of 
legislators  and  executive  oflicers  been  made  elective 
iind  for  short  terms  of  office,  while  judgeships,  though 
as  often  made  elective  as  appointive  offices,  have  been 
invariably  made  with  a  view  of  securing  a  long  tenure 
of  office. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  this  freeing  of  the  judi- 
ciary from  direct  dependence  and  submission  to  the 
will  of  the  people  has  not  worked  as  well  as  expected. 
In  place  of  putting  the  judiciary  on  a  high  plane 
v.here  the  judges  would  be  free  from  temptation  and 
secure  a  dispensation  of  justice  without  prejudice  or 
preference,  it  has  given  us  a  judiciary  independent  of 
the  people,  but  submissive  to  those  with  wealth.  Ke- 
moved  from  the  necessity  of  rendering  account  to  the 
people,  fearing  nothing  from  going  counter  to  their 
judgment  and  wishes,  our  judges  have  grown  more  and 
more  independent  of  the  influence  of  the  masses  of 
our  people  and  fallen  more  and  more  under  the  sway 
of  those  who  command  centralized  capital  and  use  it 
for  the  oppression  of  the  many  and  the  further  ag- 
grandizement of  wealth. 

Men  move  naturally  in  the  line  of  least  resistance, 
and  it  is  no  reproach  on  the  honor  of  our  judges  to 
say  that  they  are  influenced  by  their  surroundings, 
that  they  see  through  the  glasses  worn  by  the  circle  in 
which  they  move,  and  that  those  glasses  are  colored  so 


294  THE    OREAT    ISSUES. 

as  to  make  black  look  white,  wrong  right,  and  blind 
men  to  the  injustice  perpetrated  on  the  many  in  the 
interest  of  those  vvilh  centralized  capital.  Thus  it  is 
made  to  appear  that  aggression.s  made  by  centralized 
capital  are  not  aggressions,  and  that  all  resistance  to 
such  aggressions,  on  the  part  of  labor,  are  attacks  on 
capital  and  the  rights  of  property,  and  must  be  re- 
sisted as  such. 

So  it  is  we  have  our  judges  removed  from  depend- 
ence on  the  masses  of  our  people,  having  no  need  to 
feel  their  pulse,  but  finding  it  more  congenial  to  asso- 
ciate with  those  who  have  accumulated  wealth,  per- 
haps by  robbing  the  many  of  the  fruits  of  their  toil. 
Naturally,  we  find  the  views  of  such  judges  influenced 
by  the  views  of  those  interested  men  who  gladly  re- 
ceive them  in  their  circle  and  welcome  them  to  their 
boards,  ever  ready  to  share  with  them  the  luxuries  of 
wealth. 

Moreover,  we  doubt  not  that  there  are  judges  on  the 
bench  who  are  subject  to  more  direct  influences  than 
this,  who  are  guilty  of  being  the  recipients  of  vulgar 
bribes.  As  a  consequence  we  have  the  law  dispensed 
with  prejudice,  we  see  the  possessors  of  centralized 
capital  protected  by  the  law  in  their  aggressions  upon 
the  industrial  classes,  we  see  the  right  to  employ  capi- 
tal exalted  above  the  right  to  labor. 

Eight  here  let  it  be  remarked  that  capital  is  no 
enemy  of  society.  Without  the  accumulation  of  capi- 
tal there  could  have  been  no  progress  along  the  road 
to  civilization,  and  without  the  continued  accumula- 
tion of  capital  there  can  be  no  continued  advancement 
along  that  road.  Moreover,  as  civilization  advances 
it  is  necessary  to  concentrate  capital,  to  invest  large 
suras  in  single  undertakings.  It  is  only  by  so  doing 
that  labor  can  be  made  most  productive. 

But  the  concentration  of  capital  does  not  necessi- 


RIGHTS    OF   CAPITAL    VS.    EIGHTS    OF    MAN,        295 

tate  the  centralization  of  capital  in  single  hands;  it  is 
not  necessary  to  rob  the  many  of  the  surplus  fruits  of 
their  toil,  and  what  should  be  their  savings,  in  order 
to  accumulate  capital.  The  earnings  and  savings  of 
the  many  can  be  made  the  source  for  the  accumulation 
of  capital  for  great  enterprises,  just  as  well  as  the 
stealings  of  the  few. 

Therefore,  though  capital  is  not  the  enemy  of  so- 
ciety, those  who  possess  capital  and  use  such  capital  to 
gather  to  themselves  the  fruits  of  others'  labor  are 
the  enemies  of  society,  for  to  deprive  men  of  the  fruits 
of  their  toil  is  to  discourage  industry,  stifle  produc- 
tion and  retard  the  accumulation  of  wealth.  And 
everything  that  retards  the  accumulation  of  wealth, 
which  is  capital,  retards  the  advance  of  civilization. 

In  short,  those  who  accumulate  capital  by  preying 
upon  the  fruits  of  others'  labor  are  the  enemies  of  so- 
ciety, for  such  despoilment  retards  the  production  of 
wealth,  retards  the  accumulation  of  capital.  When 
men  are  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of 
their  own  labor  the  accumulation  of  capital  will  be 
much  more  rapid  than  when  the  few  are  permitted  to 
grasp  the  surplus  wealth,  the  capital  produced  by  the 
many.  Under  conditions  of  equity  there  would  be 
many  small  accumulations  of  capital  where  now  there 
are  a  few  large,  but  the  combined  capital  of  the  many 
would  grow  much  faster  than  the  capital  of  the  few 
now  does.  Some  would,  of  course,  accumulate  capital 
more  rapidly  than  others,  for  some  men  are  abler  and 
more  energetic  than  others.  There  would  be  some 
comparatively  rich  men  and  some  poor  even  if  every 
man  was  secured  the  wealth  and  capital  he  produced, 
but  there  would  be  no  inordinately  rich  men,  men  rich, 
not  from  their  own  energy  spent  in  producing  wealth, 
but  from  their  skill  in  depriving  men  of  the  fruits  of 
their  toil.     Civilization  will  advance  most  rapidly  un- 


2&6  THE   GREAT  ISSUES. 

der  that  government  that  encourages  the  accumulation 
of  capital  by  men  who  gather  it  legitimately,  and  not 
by  exacting  tribute  from  others,  and  treats  as  enemies 
of  society  those  men  who  accumulate  wealth  by  des-- 
poiling  other  men  of  the  products  of  their  toil,  for 
under  that  government  the  accumulation  of  capital 
will  be  most  rapid. 

And  now  to  return  to  the  courts  which  have  laid 
themselves  open  to  the  charge  of  dispensing  injustice 
in  the  name  of  justice,  of  exalting  the  rights  of  prop- 
erty above  the  rights  of  man,  the  right  to  employ  capi- 
tal above  the  right  to  labor,  of  extending  assistance 
to  the  coal  operators  in  their  efforts  to  crush  the  pend- 
ing strike  and  drive  the  miners  back  to  work  at  old 
wages  and  under  old  conditions.  In  short,  the  courts 
have  laid  themselves  open  to  the  charge  of  arraying 
themselves  on  the  side  of  the  operators  and  of  assist- 
ing those  operators  to  drive  the  men  back  to  work  at 
starvation  wages.  And  these  charges  are  warranted. 
The  courts  have  shown  themselves  as  the  protectors  of 
capital  and  oppressors  of  labor. 

The  courts  of  Western  Pennsylvania  and  West  Vir- 
ginia, federal  as  well  as  state,  are  the  present  offend- 
ers. It  has  fallen  to  their  lot  to  take  cognizance  of 
the  coal  strike,  and,  subject  to  the  influences  which 
surround  them,  they  have  looked  at  the  struggle  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  operators,  looked  through  the 
colored  glasses  that  teach  that  labor  has  no  rights  that 
capital  is  bound  to  respect,  and  acted  accordingly.  The 
operators  have  asked  the  assistance  of  the  courts  to 
run  their  mines  and  break  the  strike,  asked  the  courts 
to  enjoin  striking  miners  from  approaching  the  miners 
still  at  work  with  a  view  of  influencing  them  to  join 
the  strike,  and  the  courts  have  complied  by  issuing  in- 
junctions making  it  a  penal  offence  for  the  strikers  to 
approach  the  working  mines  and  hold  conference  with 


RIGHTS   OF   CAPITAL    VS.    RIGHTS    OF    MAN.        297 

the  working  miners  on  the  public  roads  leading  to  the 
mines.  Thus  the  strikers  are  practically  denied  the 
right  of  communication  with  the  working  miners  as  if 
such  miners  were  the  slaves  of  the  companies  and  not 
free  men. 

It  is  said  there  is  no  warrant  to  put  this  interpreta- 
tion on  the  injunctions  issued  by  the  courts,  that  such 
injunctions  only  restrain  the  strikers  from  assembling 
and  marching  on  the  roads  running  through  the  prop- 
erties of  the  affected  coal  companies,  roads  opened  and 
kept  by  the  companies.  But  suppose  this  were  so? 
To  whom  does  the  use  of  these  so-called  company 
roads  belong?  The  companies  have  rented  their 
houses  to  miners,  some  of  whom  are  on  strike  and 
some  at  work,  and  when  they  rented  those  houses  they 
rented  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  roads  leading  to  such 
houses.  Thus  the  property  of  the  roads  has  passed 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  companies  for  the  time  being, 
just  as  has  their  control  over  the  houses  rented.  They 
have  no  more  right  to  deny  the  right  of  the  strikers  to 
approach  the  working  miners  over  those  roads  than 
they  have  a  right  to  say  who  shall  and  who  shall  not 
cross  the  thresholds  of  the  houses  they  have  rented. 
When  the  strikers  use  such  roads  they  are  not  tres- 
passing on  the  property  of  the  coal  companies,  for  the 
right  to  the  free  use  of  those  roads,  the  right  of  in- 
gress and  egress  to  the  companies'  houses  over  those 
roads  passed  beyond  the  control  of  the  companies 
when  they  rented  such  houses.  But  the  injunctions 
issued  by  the  courts  go  much  further  than  enjoining 
the  strikers  from  using  the  paths  and  roads  on  the 
properties  of  sundry  coal  companies,  and  so  it  is  not 
worth  while  to  further  pursue  this  phase  of  the  sub- 
ject. 

If  it  was  the  business  of  the  courts  to  execute  the 
laws  there  would  be  no  objection  to  the  issuing  of  in- 


298  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

junctions  restraining  and  enjoining  the  strikers  from 
assembling,  marching,  or  encamping  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  working  mines  with  the  purpose  of  preventing  the 
miners  of  such  companies  from  continuing  at  work 
"  by  intimidation,  menaces,  threats  and  opprobrious 
words."  But  as  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  courts  to  exe- 
cute the  laws,  but  the  business  of  the  respective 
county  sheriffs  to  preserve  the  peace,  judge  when  the 
strikers  are  preventing  miners  from  working  by  in- 
timidation and  menaces,  and  thus  trespassing  on  their 
right  to  work,  and  as  it  is  the  further  duty  of  the  sher- 
iffs to  take  such  steps  as  they  may  deem  necessary  to 
prevent  the  commission  of  such  acts  of  trespass  on  the 
right  of  men  to  work  and  not  the  duty  of  the  courts 
to  dictate  those  steps,  there  would  be  grave  objection 
to  the  courts  issuing  injunctions,  even  should  those 
injunctions  go  no  further  than  to  restrain  the  strikers 
from  doing  that  which  they  have  no  right  to  do,  and 
which  it  is  the  sworn  duty  of  the  sheriffs  to  see  that 
they  do  not  do. 

But  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  injunctions  go  much 
further  than  this,  and  restrain  the  strikers  from  do- 
ing that  which  in  no  way  trespasses  on  the  rights  of 
miners  willing  to  work,  and  which  they  have  a  perfect 
right  to  do.  Thus  we  have  the  strikers  enjoined  from 
inducing  the  working  miners  to  quit  work;  in  short, 
prevented  from  presenting  any  reasons  to  those 
miners  at  work  and  willing  to  continue  to  work,  such 
as  would  induce  them  to  quit  work. 

For  the  strikers  to  visit  the  working  miners,  to  talk 
with  them  and  endeavor  to  show  them  that  by  con- 
tinuing to  work  they  are  jeopardizing  the  success  of 
the  strike,  and  that  in  the  event  of  the  strike  failing 
they  will  be  ground  down  to  further  poverty,  that  by 
continuing  to  work  they  are  sacrificing  the  future  for 
temporary  gain,  is  certainly  not  trespassing    on    the 


RIGHTS    OF    CAPITAL    VS.    RIGHTS    OF    MAX.         299 

liglits  of  such  working  miners.  On  the  contrary,  to 
deny  to  the  working  miners  the  opportunity  to  listen 
to  the  advice  of  the  strikers  and  act  on  that  advice,  if 
after  they  hear  the  arguments  presented,  they  shouhl 
deem  it  to  their  profit  to  do  so,  is  to  trespass  on  their 
rights.  And  of  this  trespass  the  courts  are  guilty, 
and  they  are  guilty  of  the  further  trespass  on  the 
rights  of  the  strikers  whom  they  have  virtually  en- 
joined from  making  efforts  to  extend  the  strike  and 
make  it  a  success. 

Thus  we  have  the  courts  not  only  usurping  execu- 
tive functions,  hut  usurping  such  functions  to  the  end 
of  strengthening  the  hands  of  the  operators  and  weak- 
ening the  hands  of  the  miners,  restraining  the  strik- 
ers who  have  not  trespassed  on  the  rights  of  anyone 
and  becoming  trespassers  themselves.  They  have  held 
that  the  operators  have  a  right  to  induce  men  to  take 
the  places  of  the  strikers,  which  is  right,  but  they  have 
denied  the  equal  right  of  the  strikers  to  induce  men 
to  quit  work  and  join  the  strike,  which  is  wrong.  To 
protect  the  operator  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  right  to 
induce  men  to  take  the  places  of  the  strikers  while  re- 
straining the  strikers  from  inducing  such  men  to  quit 
work  is  a  grievous  injustice,  it  is  giving  aid  to  tiie 
operator  to  fill  the  places  of  the  strikers,  crush  the 
strike  and  force  the  strikers  back  into  worse  conditions 
than  ever,  while  denying  to  the  strikers  the  right  to 
protect  themselves;  it  is  an  avowal  of  that  monarch- 
ical principle  that  the  weak  have  no  rights  the  power- 
ful are  bound  to  respect,  of  those  principles  of  modern 
oligarchy  that  the  rights  of  property  are  superior  to 
the  rights  of  man,  that  men  have  no  rights  that  capital 
must  respect,  that  the  interests  of  capital  are  to  be 
conserved  at  the  expense  of  the  interests  of  the  indus- 
trial classes. 

Such  avowal  on  the  part  of  our  courts,  such  tres- 


300  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

passing  on  the  rights  of  labor  at  the  dictation  of  cen- 
tralized capital,  we  cannot  afford  to  let  pass  unre- 
buked,  for  continuance  along  such  a  path  means  the 
degradation  of  our  industrial  classes,  the  overthrow 
of  democratic  govornmont  and  the  enthronement  of  an 
oligarchy  of  wealth.  The  courts  have  undertaken  to 
restrain  the  liberties  of  our  people,  have  passed  be- 
yond their  legitimate  functions  and  have  undertaken 
to  run  the  government  in  the  interest  of  the  few,  ig- 
noring the  rights  of  the  many,  but  the  time  will  surely 
come  when  the  people  will  assert  their  paramount  au- 
thority, restrain  the  courts  that  have  undertaken  to 
restrain  their  liberties,  and  make  it  known  that  the 
only  authority  the  courts  possess  is  derived  from  the 
people,  and  that  such  authority  is  conferred  for  the 
protection  of  our  whole  people,  not  the  protection  of 
the  few  and  the  oppression  of  the  many. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR'S    CRISIS— A    SUPREME 
DANGER  AND  SUPREME  OPPORTUNITY. 

[August  28tb,  1897.] 

A  CRISIS  in  the  coal  strike,  aye  more,  in  the  very 
life  of  organized  labor,  is  at  hand.  The  abil- 
ity of  the  labor  unions  to  defend  their  mem- 
bers from  aggressions,  to  conserve  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  labor,  to  resist  encroachments  on  the  liber- 
ties of  our  people,  to  successfully  battle  with  the  oli- 
garchy of  wealth  that  seeks  to  enslave  our  people,  is 
about  to  be  put  to  a  supreme  test.  That  organized 
labor  has  the  power  to  make  successful  resistance  to 
such  encroachments  and  attempted  usurpations  of  the 
liberties  of  our  people  cannot  be  doubted;  it  is  the 
ability  of  the  leaders  of  organized  labor  to  direct  that 
power  that  is  on  trial. 

If  the  leaders  of  organized  labor  fail,  if  they  show 
their  inability  to  cope  with  the  aggressions  of  central- 
ized capital  on  the  rights  of  la])or,  if  they  cannot  direct 
the  power  of  organized  labor  so  as  to  constrain  the 
courts  to  cease  to  serve  the  few  commanding  wealth  in 
their  aggressions  upon  the  many,  and  recognize  that 
lal)or  has  rights  as  well  as  capital,  sucli  leaders  will 
find  themselves  witliout  followers,  and  our  wage-earn- 
ing classes,  unless  they  are  ready  to  bow  down  to  the 
slavery  of  poverty,  must  undertake  the  building  up  of 
an  organization  anew. 

Stirred  by  the  active  participation  of  the  courts  on 
the  side  of  the  coal  operators,  by  encroachments  on 
the  rights  of  labor  that  threaten  not  only  the  liberties 
of  the  miners,  but  the  liberties  of  all  our  people,  the 


302  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

members  of  the  Executive  Board  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  have  issued  a  call  for  a  national  convention 
of  labor  leaders,  and  others  who  condemn  the  attitude 
taken  by  the  courts  in  the  coal  strike  and  are  alarmed 
at  the  manifest  encroachments  on  the  liberties  of  our 
people,  to  meet  in  St.  Louis  on  Monday  next — a  con- 
vention that,  it  is  hoped,  will  make  the  cause  of  the 
coal  strikers  the  cause  of  all  wage-earners,  declare  that 
an  injury  done  to  a  coal  striker,  an  encroachment  upon 
his  rights,  is  an  injury  done  to  all  wage-earners,  an 
encroachment  on  the  rights  of  all,  and  must  be  re- 
sisted as  such.  This  call  has  been  endorsed  by  Gom- 
pers,  as  President  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  and  by  Sovereign,  General  Master  Workman  of 
the  Knights  of  Labor. 

With  the  calling  of  this  convention  the  struggle  of 
labor  with  the  powers  of  centralized  capital,  backed  by 
tlie  courts,  enters  upon  a  new  phase.  But  the  strug- 
gle must  enter  upon  yet  another  phase;  resort  must  be 
had  to  yet  a  new  weapon  with  which  to  make  defense 
against  the  aggressions  of  centralized  capital  on  the 
rights  of  labor  and  the  liberties  of  our  people  before 
that  defense  can  be  made  with  success.  It  would  be 
an  impressive  thing  to  make  the  cause  of  the  coal 
strikers  the  cause  of  all  wage-earners,  a  thrilling  spec- 
tacle for  organized  labor  to  make  the  struggle  of  the 
miners  their  own,  but  yet  a  saddening  one,  if  that 
struggle  should  not  be  directed  so  as  to  bring  success. 

It  is  well  to  protest  against  the  injunctions  issued 
by  our  courts  restraining  striking  miners  and  their 
chosen  leaders  from  striving  to  secure  the  co-opera- 
tion of  the  working  miners,  a  co-operation  indispensa- 
ble to  push  the  strike  to  a  success.  But  for  the  con- 
vention now  called  to  meet  in  St.  Louis  to  assemble 
and  make  mere  protest  would  bo  idle.  Let  the  con- 
vention protest  against  the  action   of  our  courts  in 


ORGANIZED   LABOE's   CRISIS.  303 

infringing  on  the  indefeasible  rights  of  our  people,  in 
usurping  authority  vested  in  the  legislative  and  execu- 
tive branches  of  the  government,  but  let  that  protest 
be  followed  up  by  the  taking  of  positive  action  that 
will  constrain  men  to  heed  the  protest.  Otherwise  the 
protest  will  be  ineffectual.  It  is  idle  to  make  demands 
if  we  do  not  stand  ready  to  enforce  those  demands, 
and  so  all  protests  against  encroachments  on  the  lib- 
erties of  our  people  will  be  futile  if  positive  steps  are 
not  taken  to  check  those  encroachments. 

The  St.  Louis  convention  has  the  opportunity  t<» 
take  those  steps,  and  make  its  work  effective.  Those 
steps  lie  in  the  direction  of  organization  for  political 
action.  The  strong  arm  of  government  has  been  di- 
verted from  its  true  purpose  of  securing  justice  and 
equity  and  made  to  serve  those  who  are  encroaching 
upon  the  rights  of  our  producing  classes,  made  to  pro- 
tect the  few  who  are  enriching  themselves  by  despoil- 
ing the  many  of  the  fruits  of  their  toil.  It  is  to  pro- 
test against  this  that  the  St.  Louis  convention  has 
been  called.  It  has  further  been  called  "  to  formu- 
late plans  to  compel  a  return  to  the  principles  of  free 
government  and  to  put  said  plans  into  operation.'' 

Now,  what  are  these  plans  to  be?  The  infringe- 
ments on  the  liberties  of  our  people,  on  the  rights  of 
labor,  arc  made  through  the  strong  arm  of  the  law  di- 
rected in  the  interest  of  the  growing  oligarchy  of 
wealth.  Our  producing  classes  to  protect  themselves 
from  such  encroachments,  must  then  take  control  of 
that  strong  arm  of  government  now  used  for  their  op- 
pression and  direct  it  for  their  own  protection.  Ke- 
sistance  to  the  encroachments  of  those  who  are  build- 
ing up  an  oligarchy  of  wealth  upon  the  poverty  of  our 
producing  classes  can  be  successfully  made  in  no  other 
way. 

The  duty  of  organized  labor  is  therefore  clear.     It 


304  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

is  organization  for  common  political  action,  an  organi- 
zation that  will  enable  our  wealth  producers  to  put  to 
one  side,  put  out  of  office  and  of  power  the  judges  who 
use  the  power  entrusted  to  them,  not  for  the  dispensa- 
tion of  justice,  the  protection  of  the  weak  from  the 
aggressions  of  the  strong,  but  for  the  protection  of  the 
few  who  strive  to  gather  wealth  by  preying  upon  the 
many  who  endeavor  to  accumuliitc  wealth  by  honest 
toil.  But  to  effect  this  cleansing  of  the  judiciary,  the 
start  must  be  made  at  the  top.  Many  of  our  judges 
are  appointed  by  the  executive,  even  those  that  are 
nominally  elective  being,  in  many  instances,  virtually 
appointive,  for  they  are  chosen  for  long  terms  of 
oflfice,  and  when  dying  in  the  midst  of  the  terms  for 
which  elected  their  successors  are  chosen  by  appoint- 
ment. 

So,  if  our  wage-earners,  suffering  from  injustice  on 
the  part  of  the  courts,  would  clear  the  bench  of 
judges  who  have  become  subservient  to  those  with 
wealth,  and  dispense  injustice  in  the  name  of  justice 
in  the  interest  of  the  few  striving  to  aggrandize  them- 
selves by  grinding  down  the  wage-earning  population 
to  poverty,  such  wage-earners  must  begin  at  the  bot- 
tom by  organizing  to  elect  executive  officers,  from  the 
President  of  the  nation  down,  who  will  direct  the 
strong  arm  of  the  law  for  the  protection  of  all  those 
who  strive  to  accumulate  wealth  by  legitimate  indus- 
try, and  so  as  to  foil  all  those  seeking  to  build  up 
great  fortunes  by  wrecking  many  little  ones  and  grind- 
ing labor  down  to  the  slavery  of  poverty.  The  elec- 
tion of  such  men  can  alone  secure  the  appointment  of 
judges  recognizing  that  labor  has  rights  as  sacred  as 
the  rights  of  capital.  Moreover,  it  is  only  by  electing 
such  men  to  office  that  we  can  hope  to  hold  our  judges 
accountable  for  their  doings,  and  call  them  down  when 
encroaching  on  the  liberties  of  our  people,  for  only 


ORGANIZED   LABOR's   CRISIS.  305 

such  men  can  be  relied  upon  to  take  offense  at  usurpa- 
tions on  the  part  of  our  judges,  and  use  their  influence 
to  have  impeachment  proceedings  brought  against 
them  when  untrue  to  their  trust. 

The  hope  of  our  wage-earning  classes,  oppressed  by 
court  injustice,  lies  then  in  organizing  for  political  ac- 
tion, and  political  action  that  will  aim  at  the  top,  for 
if  government  is  directed  in  the  interest  of  the 
wealthy  and  powerful  at  the  top,  it  will  not  be  directed 
for  the  protection  of  the  weak  at  the  bottom.  If  we 
pass  laws  calculated  to  foster  the  growth  of  monopolies 
and  enrich  creditors  at  the  expense  of  debtors,  if  we 
pass  no  laws  to  check  the  growth  of  the  cliques  build- 
ing up  riches  by  wrecking  the  enterprises  of  independ- 
ent producers  who  strive  to  prosper  without  preying 
on  their  neighbors,  and  if  we  execute  such  laws  as  we 
have,  so  as  to  make  them  doubly  in  the  interest  of  the 
mighty  and  doubly  unjust,  we  can  but  expect  to  have 
the  courts  interpret  those  laws  so  as  to  make  them, 
more  unjust  and  assume  the  right  to  direct  their  exe- 
cution in  a  way  so  as  to  make  them  trebly  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  powerful  and  trebly  unjust  to  all  those 
who,  not  willing  to  sell  their  souls  for  gain,  are  outside 
the  clique-ridden  enterprises. 

Therefore,  we  say  organized  labor  must  organize  for 
common  political  action  in  order  to  conserve  the  inter- 
ests of  those  in  its  ranks,  protect  them  against  en- 
croachments of  the  judiciary,  and  defend  the  liberties 
of  our  people.  And  the  opportunity  lies  before  the 
St.  Louis  convention,  called  for  Monday  next,  to  for- 
mulate plans  to  this  end.  If  it  does  not  seize  the  op- 
portunity it  will  fail  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  its 
calling.  The  labor  unions  have  long  striven  to  keep 
clear  of  politics.  But  it  is  through  politics  that  oth- 
ers direct  the  strong  arm  of  the  law  for  their  oppres- 
sion, and  it  is  through  political  action  that  they  must 


'306  THE    GKEAT    ISSUES. 

defend  themselves  from  such  aggressions.  Control  of 
the  government  is  the  means  used  by  the  oligarchy  of 
wealth  for  their  oppression;  it  is  through  control  of 
the  government  that  the  moneyed  oligarchy  has  been 
built  up,  while  the  producing  classes  have  been  ground 
down  to  poverty;  it  is  by  control  of  tlie  government 
that  the  many  oppressed  by  that  oligarchy  must  de- 
fend themselves.  Therefore,  it  will  not  do  for  organ- 
ized labor  to  keep  out  of  politics,  for  by  so  doing  is  to 
make  no  use  of  the  only  weapon  that  can  be  effectively 
used  for  defense  against  the  strongest  weapon  used  by 
the  oligarchy  of  wealth  for  their  oppression,  namely, 
the  strong  arm  of  the  law. 

To  organize  labor  for  common  political  action  for 
common  defense,  is  indeed  not  the  work  of  a  single 
convention.  But  the  plans  for  that  organization,  the 
initial  steps,  must  somewhere  be  laid,  and  the  St. 
Louis  convention  cannot  do  better  than  to  undertake 
this  task.  It  will  be  impotent  lor  good  if  it  does  not. 
To  effect  such  organization  is,  indeed,  no  light  under- 
taking, but  it  can  be  done  and  it  must  be  done  if  the 
encroachments  of  oligarchy,  through  the  strong  arm 
of  the  law,  are  to  be  successfully  resisted.  To  effect 
such  organization  will  take  work,  untiring  work.  It 
will  take  a  sacrifice  of  property  and  the  material  com- 
forts of  life,  a  contribution  of  money  by  those  who 
have  accumulated  property,  a  contribution  of  time, 
which  is  the  same  thing  as  money,  by  those  who  have 
no  property  to  give.  But  if  the  Republic  is  worthy  of 
saving,  such  contributions  will  be  forthcoming,  such 
sacrifices  cheerfully  made.  If  men  are  not  ready  to 
make  such  sacrifices  in  defense  of  their  liberties  they 
are  unworthy  of  liberty,  and  enslavement  to  an  oli- 
garchy of  wealth  will  be  their  just  reward. 

Through  the  weapon  of  a  strike  organized  labor  can 
at  best  secure  but  one  thing:  a  fair  division  of  the  sum 


ORGAXIZEI)    LABOU'S    CRISIS.  307 

realized  by  the  employer  of  labor  upon  the  sale  of  the 
product  and  available  for  the  payment  of  wages  and 
profits,  a  fair  division  between  the  reward  of  employer 
as  profits  and  wage-earner  as  wages.  And  under  fiscal 
and  transportation  systems  that  lead  np  to  industrial 
stagnation,  organized  labor,  through  the  weapon  of  the 
strike,  cannot  secure  even  this,  for  when  there  are 
more  workmen  than  jobs  the  task  of  forcing  up  wages 
by  a  strike,  that  is  of  forcing  employers  to  pay  higher 
wages  by  making  an  artificial  scarcity  of  labor,  is  well- 
nigh  impossible. 

And  finally,  under  a  fiscal  system  that  makes  money 
dear  and  condemns  the  employer  of  labor  to  give  a 
greater  portion  of  the  total  wealth  produced  by  the 
hibor'he  employs  and  directs  to  the  creditor  classes, 
and  under  a  transportation  system  that  exacts  from 
him  a  tribute  in  the  interest  of  the  clique-ridden  en- 
terprises, the  share  of  the  wage-earner  in  the  wealth 
produced  must  be  a  continually  decreasing  one,  for 
as  the  share  taken  by  the  creditor  classes  and  specula- 
tive cliques  is  increased,  just  to  that  degree  must  the 
share  remaining  to  be  divided  as  profits  and  wages  be 
diminished.  The  brunt  of  the  resulting  loss  may  fall 
at  first  on  the  employer,  but  the  time  will  come  when 
profits  are  wiped  out  and  then  wages  must  be  reduced, 
for  employers,  under  such  conditions,  must  cut  wages. 
To  continue  production  without  cutting  wages  would 
mean  bankruptcy,  and  so  the  final  alternative  for  the 
wage-earner  is  either  acceptance  of  a  cut  in  wages,  so 
as  to  enable  employers  to  continue  production,  or  idle- 
ness. 

Of  course  there  is  a  certain  margin  of  earnings  that 
must  be  wiped  out  before  employers  will  stop  produc- 
tion and  shut  down  their  plants,  and  this  margin  ex- 
ceeds the  margin  of  profits,  for  certain  charges,  inter- 
est on  plant,  taxes  and  insurance,  etc.,  run  on  whether 


308  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

the  plant  is  running  or  not.  Besides,  there  is  depre- 
ciation in  the  value  of  idh;  property  to  be  considered, 
and  the  fear  that  a  shut  down  will  result  in  the  loss  of 
trade,  that  it  is  hoped  will  be  profitable  at  some  future 
time,  is,  of  course,  a  certain  incentive  for  employers 
to  keep  plants  in  operation,  even  at  a  loss.  Then,  too, 
a  shutting  down  of  a  plant  often  involves  extra  ex- 
penses that  can  ill  be  spared,  and  a  shut  down  shuts 
off  facilities  of  borrowing  money.  So  employers  will 
often  continue  to  run  their  plants,  though  the  run- 
ning is  equivalent  to  running  into  bankruptcy.  They 
do  so  hoping  for  a  turn  in  the  tide. 

But  in  the  long  run  shut  downs  will  come  when  the 
margin  of  earnings  is  wiped  out,  and  sooner  or  later 
tlie  alternative  must  be  met  by  the  wage-earner;  a 
cut  in  wages  to  reduce  the  cost  of  production  and  in- 
crease the  margin  of  earnings,  or  idleness.  Besides, 
when  industry  holds  out  no  promise  of  profits  all  ex- 
tensions are  checked,  and  so  no  new  opportunities  of 
work  are  opened  to  wage-earners.  Consequently,  as 
population  grows  the  men  who  cannot  find  jobs  must 
increase,  this  makes  increasing  competition  among 
wage-earners  for  work,  and  this  creates  the  idle  army 
that  is  ever  the  bete  noir  of  organized  labor,  for  it  is 
in  this  idle  army  that  employers  of  labor  find  the 
means  of  crushing  strikes  by  drawing  upon  it  for  men 
to  fill  the  places  of  strikers. 

From  a  fall  in  wages  brought  about  by  such  condi- 
tions, namely,  an  appreciating  dollar,  an  increased 
share  of  the  creditor  classes  in  the  wealth  produced,  a 
diminished  share  left  over  for  employer  and  employee, 
loss  of  profits  and  curtailed  production,  the  strike  is 
no  effective  weapon.  It  cannot  defeat  the  aggressions 
of  oligarchy  made  through  the  agency  of  an  appreciat- 
ing dollar. 

It   is    equally   impossible    to    resist    the    encroacli- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR's    CRISIS.  309 

ments  of  this  oligarchy  Ijy  the  weapon  of  the  strike 
when  sneh  encroachments  are  made  through  the 
agency  of  our  railroads  and  discrimination  in  trans- 
portation charges.  So  long  as  the  speculative  cliques 
control  our  railroads,  it  will  be  impossible  to  prevent 
such  cliques  from  aggrandizing  themselves  by  preying 
upon  the  savings  of  independent  producers  and  grind- 
ing down  wages.  While  our  railroads  give  lower  trans- 
portation rates  and  prompter  and  better  facilities  to 
clique-ridden  enterprises  and  monopolies  than  they  do 
to  independent  producers,  such  independent  producers 
cannot  prosper  and  their  enterprises  will  Ijc  wrecked. 
Under  such  conditions  the  speculative  cliques  will 
grow  richer,  for  they  will  have  the  opportunity  of  se- 
curing the  properties  and  accumulations  of  independ- 
ent producers  for  a  song  and  then  instilling  new  life 
into  those  properties  by  bleeding  the  railroads.  And 
these  conditions  will  last  just  so  long  as  our  railroads 
are  directed  by  speculative  cliques  who  systematically 
use  the  railroads  to  wreck  industries  upon  which  they 
seek  to  prey,  and  then  turn  round  and  wreck  the  rail- 
roads to  build  up  the  industries  that  in  the  hands  of 
independent  producers  they  made  unprofitable. 

Moreover,  the  wrecking  of  independent  producers 
by  discriminations  in  transportation  rates  is  not  only 
a  blow  to  those  producers.  Such  wrecking  is  a  blow 
to  wage-earners,  for  it  builds  up  monopolies  and  cen- 
tralizes industries,  and  just  as  monopolies  grow  and 
the  opportunities  for  employment  become  more  and 
more  restricted  to  such  opportunities  as  are  offered  by 
the  monopolies  and  clique-ridden  enterprises,  the 
power  of  the  wage-earner  to  command  wages  grows 
less  and  less,  and  his  necessity  of  accepting  such  wages 
as  are  offered  by  the  clique  enterprises  grows  with  his 
dependence  upon  them.  So  the  power  of  the  employer 
over  the  wage-earner  grows  and  the  power  of  the  wage- 


310  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

earner  over  the  disposal  of  his  own  labor  diminishes. 
Besides,  the  centralization  of  wealth  weakens  the 
power  of  the  wage-earner  to  make  successful  resistance 
to  aggressions. 

So  it  is  that  organized  labor,  so  long  as  it  ties  itself 
down  to  the  weai)on  of  the  strike,  cannot  make  suc- 
cessful resistance  to  the  encroachments  of  oligarchy 
when  such  encroachments  are  made  through  the 
agency  of  an  appreciating  dollar  or  a  clique-ridden 
transportation  system.  And  it  is  by  these  two  means 
that  the  oligarchy  of  wealth  aggrandizes  itself  with 
such  alarming  rapidity.  Therefore,  if  organized  labor 
would  make  successful  resistance  to  these  encroach- 
ments, if  it  would  preserve  labor  from  despoilment  at 
the  hands  of  the  pow'erful,  it  must  make  use  of  that 
weapon  so  successfully  used  by  that  oligarchy  for  op- 
pression, namely,  the  strong  arm  of  the  law;  it  must 
no  longer  tolerate  the  direction  of  that  arm  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  few  and  for  the  oppression  of  the  many; 
it  must  direct  that  arm  so  as  to  overthrow  the  system 
of  an  appreciating  dollar  which  robs  debtors  in  the 
name  of  honesty,  and  the  clique-ridden  transportation 
system  which  frowns  down  legitimate  industry  and 
rears  up  monopoly. 

And  this  overthrow  can  only  be  accomplished 
through  political  action.  Let  the  St.  Louis  conven- 
tion take  the  steps  to  this  end.  Let  us  hope  that  the 
encroachments  of  the  Judiciary  on  the  rights  of  labor 
will  not  only  impel  organized  labor  to  make  common 
protest,  but  to  back  up  that  protest  by  organizing  for 
political  action.  It  is  the  only  way  to  fight  injunc- 
tions, the  only  way  to  fight  aggressions  on  labor  made 
through  the  agency  of  the  appreciating  dollar,  the 
only  way  to  fight  those  who  use  the  railroads  to  prey 
upon  labor  and  who  are  protected  in  their  encroach- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR'S    CRISIS.  311 

ments  by  the  strong  arm  of  the  law,  strong  though  it 
be  used  for  injustice. 

Will  organized  labor  rise  to  the  occasion  or  will  it 
fail?  Will  it  take  that  political  action  that  will  en- 
able it  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  the  oligarchy  of 
wealth  or  will  it  spurn  to  make  use  of  that  only 
Aveapon  which  can  be  made  effective,  and  thus  render 
itself  impotent  to  repel  those  encroachments?  The 
danger  that  confronts  organized  labor  is  great,  but  so 
is  the  opportunity.  Failure  to  organize  so  as  to  use 
the  ballot  for  defense  against  aggressions  will  render 
it  impotent,  organization  for  common  political  action 
will  render  it  irresistible. 


PLUTOCHACY  VS.  THE  PEOPLE. 

[October  29th,  1898.] 

IN  Philadelphia  there  is  a  club  called  "  The  Manu- 
facturers',*' and  a  weekly  paper  published  by  and 
taking  the  name  of  this  club.  Not  a  great  while 
ago  this  club  exerted  itself  mightily  in  defense  of  the 
protective  tariff  system,  its  influence  was  great  and 
much  heed  was  given  to  the  wishes  of  its  members  in 
the  framing  of  protective  tariff  legislation.  And  as 
the  organ  of  this  club,  and  ably  expounding  the  doc- 
trine of  protection,  "  The  Manufacturer  "  had  an  in- 
fluence much  broader  than  its  somewhat  narrow 
clientele. 

But  with  the  industrial  depression  of  the  past  few 
years,  Avith  the  impoverishment  of  our  agricultural 
population,  the  consequent  diminished  demand  for 
manufactured  goods,  the  stagnation,  the  paring  down 
of  prices,  the  inability  to  find  a  home  market  capable 
of  absorbing  that  which  the  mills  and  factories  were 
prepared  to  produce,  the  manufacturers  have  reached 
out  for  foreign  markets.  A  domestic  trade  having 
been  destroyed  they  bent  their  energies  to  build  up  an 
export  trade.  And  so  it  is  that  the  demand  that  the 
home  markets  be  preserved  to  American  manufactur- 
ers has  been  overshadowed  by  the  demand  that  foreign 
markets  for  our  manufactures  he  extended.  How 
much  better  it  would  have  been  to  exert  their  energies 
to  restore  the  home  market,  to  broaden  out  what  had 
been  narrowed,  to  regain  that  which  had  been  lost 
than  to  have  reached  out  for  foreign  markets,  for  a 
trade  not  one  tithe  as  great,  even  if  we  could  capture 


PLUTOCRACY   VS.    THE   PEOPLE,  313 

it  all,  as  the  home  trade,  markets  that  we  had  lost, 
these  manufacturers  did  not  stop  to  consider.  A 
home  trade  had  been  lost,  and  for  an  export  trade  they 
reached  out.  They  failed  to  grasp  the  situation,  to 
see  that  their  welfare  was  bound  up  with  that  of  our 
agricultural  population,  that  they  could  not  prosper 
while  our  farmers  and  planters,  their  best  customers, 
were  impoverished.  And  not  seeing  this,  and  not  de- 1 
voting  themselves  to  remedying  the  evil  of  the  situa- 
tion, they  have  not  prospered.  That  they  have  not 
prospered  is  not  remarkal)le,  that  they  have  not  recog- 
nized the  seat  of  their  trouble  is.  It  speaks  not  high- 
ly of  their  intelligence. 

But  be  this  as  it  may,  they  had  reached  out  for  for- 
eign trade  more  and  more,  and  so  reaching  out  they 
have  lost  interest  in  the  maintenance  of  the  protective 
tariff  system,  for  such  system  is  of  no  assistance  to 
them  in  seeking  foreign  markets  and  no  tariff  system 
can  be  unless  used  as  a  fulcrum  from  which  to  force 
reciprocal  trade  arrangements,  that  is,  discrimination 
in  the  tariff  rates  of  other  countries  in  favor  of  our 
goods  in  return  for  like  discrimination  made  by  us  in 
favor  of  those  countries  giving  us  a  preference  by  per- 
mitting entrance  of  goods  imported  from  the  United 
States  at  reduced  tariff  rates.  But  in  the  absence  of 
such  discrimination  our  manufacturers  must  sell  in 
foreign  markets  in  open  competition  with  the  pro- 
ducers of  all  the  world.  From  such  competition  no 
tariff'  rates  that  we  may  impose  on  imports  can  pro- 
tect them,  unless,  we  repeat,  it  be  through  the  indirect 
agency  of  forcing  reciprocal  trade  arrangements 
whereby  some  other  nations  may  impose  their  tariff 
duties  so  as  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  our  goods.  Tn 
other  words,  by  offering  to  permit  the  importation  of 
sugar  free  of  duty  from  such  countries  as  would  so 
impose  their  tariff'  duties  as  to  give  a  preference  to 


314  TIIK    GREAT    ISSUES. 

American  goods  we  niiglit  tempt  Cuba,  when  she  is 
free  and  independent,  to  place  higher  duties  on  goods 
imported  from  Europe  than  on  goods  from  America,  or 
again  l)y  phicing  a  duty  on  importations  of  coffee  from 
all  countries  that  would  not  grant  us  tariff  favors  we 
might  induce  Brazil  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  Ameri- 
can goods.  This  would  be  simply  saying  we  will  give 
you  a  market  for  sugar  and  coffee,  1)ut  only  on  condi- 
tion that  you  make  us  a  market  for  manufactured 
goods. 

But  tariff  duties  so  imposed  could  not  be  regarded  as 
protective  duties  in  the  sense  of  preserving  the  home 
nuirkets.  Indeed,  they  would  be  imposed  with  an  en- 
tirely different  purpose  than  have  our  protective  tariff 
duties  in  the  past  and  at  present,  duties  imposed  to 
protect  our  manufacturers  from  foreign  competition 
in  the  home  markets.  And  so  have  manufacturers, 
reaching  out  for  foreign  trade,  lost  interest  in  the 
maintenance  of  the  protective  tariff  system.  Selling 
in  foreign  markets,  and  markets  in  which  our  tariff 
system  extends  to  them  no  protection,  they  have  of 
necessity  to  offer  their  goods  at  prices  fixed  in  open 
competition  with  the  manufacturers  of  all  the  world. 
They  cannot  ask  higher  prices  than  their  competitors 
do.  They  must  sell  at  prices  at  which  British  and  Ger- 
mans are  willing  to  sell  or  be  shut  out  of  the  foreign 
markets.  To  build  up  our  export  trade  they  must 
meet  the  British  and  German  prices.  And  producing 
more  than  our  own  people  in  their  present  condition 
can  consume,  the  surplus  must  be  sold  at  British  and 
German  prices.  And  this  means,  save  where  there  is 
monopoly  and  no  domestic  competition,  that  prices  for 
that  part  of  the  produce  sold  in  our  own  markets  will 
be  forced  down  to  the  same  level.  This,  under  condi- 
tions of  domestic  competition,  is  an  inexorable  law  of 
economics,  for  manufacturers  will  not  export  their  pro- 


I'LUTOCKACY    VS.    THE    PEOPLE.  315 

duce  if  they  can  realize  better  prices  by  putting  it  upon 
our  home  markets.  It  is  only  when  prices  in  our 
home  markets  are  so  depressed  that  l)etter  returns  can 
be  realized  by  sending  to  foreign  nuirkets  that  there 
Avill  be  inducement  to  export.  And  prices  have  been 
so  depressed  in  our  own  markets  for  the  reason  that 
the  demand  has  been  so  curtailed  that  the  supply  has, 
though  also  curtailed,  outrun  it.  The  resulting  pres- 
sure upon  the  markets,  a  pressure  increased  not  be- 
cause of  greater  offerings  of  goods,  but  because  the 
takings  have  been  smaller,  has  of  course  forced  down 
prices  until  relief  has  been  found  in  exporting  the  sur- 
plus, a  relief  that  can  only  be  found  at  prices  li.xed  in 
free  competition  with  all  the  world. 

And  so  it  is  that  protective  tariff  duties  have  ceased 
to  protect  our  manufacturers  from  foreign  competi- 
tion, and  ceasing  to  be  of  benefit  our  manufacturers 
have  ceased  to  have  such  a  lively  interest  in  their  main- 
tenance. Of  the  protective  system  they  have  ceased 
to  be  determined  supporters,  they  merely  give  ad- 
hesion in  a  general  way  out  of  respect  to  past  memories 
and  prejudices  so  difficult  to  shake  off.  But  the  live 
interest  in  the  tariff  is  no  more. 

So  it  is  that  reaching  out  for  foreign  trade  they 
have  come  to  lose  sight  of  the  general  community  of 
interests  that  they  once  taught  with  so  much  effect, 
they  have  come  to  have  less  regard  for  the  welfare  of 
others,  to  reason  in  the  narrow  lines  of  selfishness 
In  place  of  caring  for  the  well-beinK  and  happiness 
of  their  workers  they  come  to  look  upon  the  grinding 
down  of  those  workers  as  a  means  to  their  enrichment, 
to  look  upon  the  interests  of  their  workers  not  as  iden- 
tical to  their  own  but  as  inimical. 

This  has  come  with  the  reaching  out  for  an  export 
trade.  In  dreaming  of  that  trade  they  have  ceased  to 
regard  their  workmen  as  consumers,  lost  sight  of  the 


316  TYIE    GREAT    ISSUKS. 

fact  that  our  own  laboring  and  farming  population 
makes  the  most  reliable  market  for  manufactured 
goods,  that  in  the  prosperity  of  that  population,  re- 
munerative prices  for  agricultural  products  and  high 
wages,  is  to  be  found  the  true  basis  of  prosperity  for 
manufacturers. 

Impoverish  the  laboring  and  farming  population, 
and  you  undermine  the  market  for  manufactured 
goods,  grind  down  the  workman  and  you  injure  the 
employer.  This  is  the  true  rule.  But  our  manufac- 
turers, though  they  once  expounded  it,  have  forgotten 
it.  Those  of  them  carried  away  by  unrealizable 
dreams  of  an  export  trade  have  come  to  see  in  the 
grinding  down  of  the  workman,  the  driving  down  of 
the  price  for  coal  and  iron  ore,  for  cotton  and  for  wool, 
the  means  of  swelling  their  own  profits. 

Such  grinding  down,  such  cheapening,  must  under- 
mine the  purchasing  power  of  their  best  customers, 
and  thus  must  injure  them,  but  this,  casting  their 
thoughts  upon  an  export  trade,  they  overlook.  They 
come  to  reason,  simply,  as  the  factory  lords  of  Britain 
have  long  done,  that  such  grinding  must  cheapen 
the  cost  of  production,  must  enable  them  to  extend 
their  export  trade  and  so  swell  their  profits.  They 
forget  that  such  grinding  must  narrow  their  many 
times  more  valuable  home  trade,  they  forget  that  an 
export  trade  cannot  be  built  up  without  an  import 
trade,  that  if  we  impoverish  our  people  and  so  curtail 
their  purchasing  power  the  building  up  of  such  import 
trade  must  be  hindered,  and  that,  as  a  consequence,  an 
export  trade  cannot  be  developed  as  they  dream,  can- 
not be  developed  upon  the  grinding  down,  the  impov- 
erishing, of  our  people.  And,  forgetting  this,  believ- 
ing they  can  swell  their  profits  by  grinding  dow^n  those 
who  toil  with  their  hands,  their    sympathy    for    the 


PLUTOCRACY  VS.  THE  PEOPLE.         317 

downtrodden  and  oppressed  is  dulled,  for  the  greed  lor 
gain  steels  the  heart. 

Thus  do  wo  see  manufacturers  whose  true  interests 
should  lead  them  to  align  themselves  with  the  people 
taking  sides  with  the  plutocracy,  applauding  those  who 
trample  upon  labor,  denouncing  those  who  take  labor's 
side,  speaking  of  tlio  worker  as  of  an  inferior  being, 
liorn  into  the  world  to  be  the  hewer  of  wood  and  drawer 
of  water  for  the  few,  acting  as  if  it  was  the  right  of  em- 
ployer to  cuff  and  beat  the  worker  with  impunity.  So 
it  is  natural  that  we  should  find  the  aforesaid  "]\lanu- 
facturer,"  mouthpiece  of  the  Manufacturers'  Club,  l)ut 
misrepresenting  the  sentiments  of  the  majority  of 
manufacturers  and  employers  of  labor  we  sincerely 
hope,  bitterly  criticizing  Governor  Tanner  for  the 
stand  he  has  taken  in  the  troubles  between  coal  opera- 
tors and  miners  at  A'irden,  111.  Of  the  equities  of  the 
Governor's  position  we  have  nothing  to  say  here.  It  is 
to  the  challenge  of  plutocracy  as  voiced  in  "  The  Man- 
ufacturer "  that  we  desire  to  direct  attention,  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  plutocrats  or  people  shall  rule.  And 
by  plutocrat  we  mean  nothing  vulgarly  offensive,  we 
mean  one  whose  influence  is  a  money  given  influence, 
who  holds  money  dearer  than  man,  who  rules  by  the 
use  of  money,  who  shrinks  not  from  the  corruption  of 
voter  and  legislator  to  gain  his  end,  who  seeks  to  exalt 
and  enrich  self  by  trampling  upon  the  welfare  of  the 
many  and  hence  is  an  enemy  of  mankind. 

Referring  to  Governor  Tanner  and  his  course  in  re- 
gard to  the  Virden  troubles,  "  The  Manufacturer " 
thus  throws  down  the  challenge: 

"  It  is  unfortunate  in  the  extreme  that  there  is  no 
way  to  get  at  a  revolutionist  and  an  ignorant  anti- 
Federalist  of  this  type.  If  the  disturbances  should 
continue  and  the  Governor  should  persist  in  his  course, 


318  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

it  would  be  the  manifest  duty  of  President  McKinley 
to  follow  the  example  of  his  predecessor  in  respect  to 
Tanner's  predecessor.  There  are  few  incidents  fuller 
of  gloomy  forebodings  for  social  order  than  these 
anarchistic  outbreaks  among  (jlovornors  and  other  offi- 
cials who  get  into  power  somehow  and  do  more  to 
spread  the  seeds  of  socialism  than  all  the  books  that 
ever  were  written  on  the  subject.  The  dissemination 
of  such  doctrine  among  the  working  classes  and  the 
exhibition  of  public  sympathy  for  violence  on  the  part 
of  strikers  and  other  assailants  on  wealth  and  prop- 
erty, lead  us  to  wonder  whether  the  time  is  not  com- 
ing in  the  not  very  distant  future  when  we  will  have  to 
take  sides  in  our  politics  as  they  do  in  Europe  for  and 
against  this  social  revolution.  We  want  none  of  this 
Continental  socialism  here  on  this  new  continent,  and 
public  sentiment  in  all  parts  of  the  country  to-day  is 
overwhelmingly  against  such  economic  heresies  when- 
ever they  appear  in  tangible  form  and  the  press  and 
people  can  get  sight  of  them  to  scotch  their  ugly 
heads." 

Thus  is  the  time  anticipated  when  the  lines  will  be 
drawn  between  plutocracy  on  the  one  side  and  people 
on  the  other.  The  virulence  evinced  towards  and  the 
contempt  expressed  for  the  believers  in  the  need  of 
such  a  social  revolution  as  will  overthrow  the  rule  of 
plutocracy  and  re-enthrone  the  people  as  their  own 
rulers,  is  unworthy  of  comment.  To  be  denounced  as 
abetting  this  revolution,  to  receive  the  abuse  of  plu- 
tocracy, is  to  be  honored.  Such  denunciation  from 
the  enemies  of  progress,  of  civilization,  of  the  uplift- 
ing of  mankind,  but  shows  one  to  be  deserving  of  the 
encomiums  of  the  multitude.  That  the  time  is  not 
far  distant  when  the  people  of  this  countrj-  will  be 
called  upon  to  take  sides  in  our  politics  for  or  against 


PLUTOCRACY   VS.    THE   PEOPLE.  319 

such  social  revolution  as  can  alone  free  our  people 
from  the  domination  of  plutocracy  we  firmly  believe. 
The  only  difference  between  such  social  revolution 
here  and  in  Europe  is,  we  hope,  that  here  so  many  will 
take  sides  for  such  revolution,  so  few  against,  that  the 
plutocracy  will  be  powerless  to  resist,  that  its  over- 
throw will  be  signal  and  the  upbuilding  of  true  demo- 
cracy, v.'itii  the  people  once  again  enthroned,  be  as 
rapid  as  it  shall  be  firm. 

Such  articles  as  that  of  "The  Manufacturer"  but 
serve  to  unmask  plutocracy.  And  with  plutocracy  un- 
masked who  can  doubt  what  side  the  masses  of  our 
people  will  take?  As  the  lilm  of  misrepresentation 
which  has  kept  them  silent  and  submissive  while  the 
plutocracy  has  been  built  up,  as  this  film  that  has 
caused  them  to  divide  their  eff'orts  and  spend  their 
energies  in  support  of  the  two  old  and  battling  par- 
ties, but  both  serving  the  interests  of  plutocracy,  re- 
gardless of  the  welfare  of  the  multitude,  drops  from 
their  eyes  they  will  break  away  from  their  old  parties 
and  align  themselves  against  i)lutocracy,  for  the  social 
revolution  that  will  restore  to  tiiem  their  rights  and 
liberties.  Then  there  will  be  a  realignment  of  parties, 
the  plutocrats  on  one  side,  the  people  on  the  other, 
the  party  of  Plutocracy  against  the  party  of  Populism. 
And  can  the  issue  be  doubtful? 

Men  are  prone  to  cringe  before  the  very  mention  of 
revolution.  But  what  is  revolution?  It  is  revolt 
against  oppression,  the  overthrow  and  destruction  of 
those  things  that  hold  men  down,  it  is  progress,  it  is 
advancement,  it  is  movement  for  the  uplifting  of  nuin- 
kind  that  necessitates  the  overthrow  of  those  who 
profit  from  injustice,  who  have  reared  themselves 
above  their  fellows  by  preying  on  their  fellow-men.  A 
people  cannot  stand  still  in  the  face  of  injustice  and 
exactions  and  grow.     If  it  does  stand  still  those  who 


320  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

practice  such  injustices,  who  profit  from  such  exac- 
tions will  grow  richer  and  stronger,  they  will  extend 
their  exactions,  injustice  will  grow  more  pronounced, 
the  people  poorer  and  weaker  and  more  oppressed  and 
national  decay  and  degeneracy  will  set  in.  And  so 
where  a  plutocracy  has  been  built  up  upon  injustice 
perpetrated  in  the  name  of  law,  upon  exactions  made 
in  the  name  of  might,  such  plutocracy  must  be  de- 
stroyed, or  the  state,  a  prey  to  such  plutocracy,  exist- 
ing for  its  profit  and  not  that  of  the  people,  degen- 
erate and  decay. 

If  this  overturning  is  by  degrees,  or  if  a  people 
alive  to  their  interests  and  jealous  of  their  rights  re- 
sist encroachments  as  soon  as  attempted,  so  prevent 
injustice  and  exactions  from  growing  and  thus  keep 
open  the  paths  to  their  advancement  and  progress,  we 
call  this  progress  taking  place  so  smoothly  and  stead- 
ily evolutionary.  But  if  a  people  careless  of  their 
rights  permit  injustices  to  grow  and  take  deep  root, 
and  then,  when  such  injustices  can  be  borne  no  longer, 
arise  to  overthrow  them  the  overthrow  is  sharp,  re- 
sults in  a  marked  change  in  the  relations  between  the 
oppressed  and  oppressors  and  we  call  the  change  revo- 
lutionary. Thus  the  difference  between  evolution  and 
revolution  is  but  one  of  degree.  Both  mean  progress, 
one  progress  so  gradually  made  as  to  be  uncon- 
sciously accomplished,  the  other  so  rapid  and  marked 
that  the  movers  in  the  rapidly  changing  scenes  are 
most  conscious  of  the  overturn  and  the  advancement 
attracts  the  attention  of  mankind. 

And  now  it  happens  that  our  people  have  suffered 
injustices  and  exactions  until  a  powerful  plutocracy 
has  been  built  up,  the  overthrow  of  which  will  cost 
much  effort.  But  overthrown  it  must  be  or  it  will 
complete  the  overthrow  of  our  Republic.  So  we  are 
brought  face  to  face    with    social    revolution,  which 


PLUTOCBACY   VS.   THE   PEOPLE.  321 

means  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  rapid  undoing  of 
the  injustices  and  inequalities  and  wrongs  of  the  past 
generation  upon  which  the  plutocracy  that  undermines 
our  institutions  and  saps  the  vitality  of  our  people, 
has  been  built  up.  It  is  a  question  of  social  revolu- 
tion or  degeneracy.  As  our  President  recently  said: 
"The  nation  must  grow  or  it  will  decay."  And  it 
fiuinot  grow  if  the  rights  of  man  to  an  equality  of  op- 
portunity in  the  production  of  wealth  are  denied,  if  a 
favored  few  are  permitted,  through  the  toleration  of 
private  monopolies,  to  levy  exactions  upon  the  multi- 
tude. 

So  if  there  is  to  come  growth  there  must  come  the 
social  revolution  that  will  restore  an  equality  of  op- 
portunity to  all  men,  that  will  destroy  private 
monopoly.  And  this  means  that  the  government  that 
has  snapped  the  whip  over  the  owners  of  property  in 
the  interest  of  the  owners  of  money  and  driven  the 
owners  of  property  to  surrender  the  fruits  of  their  labor 
to  the  owners  of  debts  by  making  the  dollar  in  which 
such  del)ts  are  payable  worth  more  and  measure  more 
property,  must  regulate  the  volume  and  value  of 
money  so  that  the  interests  of  all  those  who  make  con- 
tracts in  terms  of  money  shall  be  safeguarded,  so  that 
owners  of  property  and  owners  of  money,  debtors  and 
creditors  shall  stand  upon  the  same  footing.  And  as 
the  government  cannot  control  the  volume  of  gold  and 
silver  money  so  as  to  thus  regulate  its  value,  it  is  in- 
cumbent upon  the  nation  to  issue  a  paper  currency  the 
volume  of  which  it  can  reguhite. 

The  social  revolution  impending  means  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  a  currency.  It  means  this,  and  it 
means  the  destruction  of  such  monopolies  as  can  be 
destroyed  and  the  taking  of  such  as  cannot  out  of  pri- 
vate hands  and  putting  them  under  government  man- 
agement so  that  they  may  be  operated  for  the  profit 


322  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

of  the  whole  people  and  not  solely  for  the  aggrandize- 
ment of  the  favored  few. 

As  we  have  had  occasion  to  point  out,  there 
are  artificial  and  there  are  natural  monopolies, 
monopolies  built  up  upon  special  privileges  such  as 
freight  discriminations,  special  privileges  that  we  can 
undo  and  thereby  destroy  the  monopolies  built  upon 
them;  and  monopolies  built  upon  natural  conditions, 
and  that  we  cannot  destroy.  And  in  such  latter  cases 
the  government  must  become  the  monopolist,  for  in 
no  other  way  can  an  equality  of  opportunity  be  re- 
stored to  our  people.  Thus  the  railroad  must  be,  from 
its  very  nature,  more  or  less  of  a  monopoly  freed  from 
the  restraints  of  competition.  Even  were  all  our  dif- 
ferent lines  of  railroad  independent  and  competitive 
there  would  be,  and  under  any  conceivable  conditions 
must  continue  to  be,  many  communities  dependent  en- 
tirely upon  one  railroad  which  so  far  as  that  locality 
is  concerned  has  a  monopoly.  And  even  the  com- 
munities served  by  many  lines  of  railroad  are  not  free 
from  such  monopoly,  for  they  trade  with  the  communi- 
ties served  by  only  one,  and  to  reach  those  communi- 
ties they  are  dependent  upon  the  railroads  that  serve 
them  and  monopolize  trade  in  such  communities. 

We  are  mindful  of  the  assertion  that  the  railroad 
having  such  monopoly  is  restrained  from  abusing  it  by 
the  knowledge  that  such  abuse  would  cause  the  shift- 
ing of  industries  to  other  localities,  and  thereby  un- 
dermine the  business  of  the  road  and  do  it  injury.  And 
this  is  all  very  true,  but  the  dismal  truth  is  that  the 
railroad  managers  care  more  for  the  interests  of  the 
cliques  to  whom  they  generally  owe  their  preferment 
than  they  do  for  the  interests  of  the  stockholders. 
And  these  cliques,  making  a  business  of  preving  upon 
their  fellow-men,  causing  wrecks  that  they  may  fatten 
upon  them,  find  great  profit  in  using  the  railroads  to 


PLUTOCRACY  VS.  THE  PEOPLE.         323 

rlestro^^  industries  in  one  locality  and  build  them  up 
in  another,  and  then  when  they  have  transferred  their 
investments,  sold  out  their  interests  in  the  boomed 
industries  of  the  favored  locality  and  bought  up  the 
wrecks  in  the  other,  in  using  the  railroads  to  reverse 
conditions.  Moreover,  the  railroads  are  not  freely 
competitive.  Controlled  largely  by  the  same  specula- 
tive cliques,  they  give  preferences,  despite  the  inter- 
diction of  the  Interstate  Commerce  law,  to  those  en- 
terprises in  whose  success  the  cliques  are  interested. 

So  do  the  railroads  give  great  advantages  to  some 
enterprises  such  as  confer  upon  them  a  virtual 
monopoly  of  business,  and  it  is  upon  such  preferences 
that  the  majority  of  our  industrial  trusts  have  been 
reared.  Thus  do  our  railroads  work  for  the  upbuild- 
ing of  the  rich  and  powerful;  to  the  weak  and  strug- 
gling they  refuse  to  offer  equal  opportunities;  they 
have  a  monopoly,  and  this  monopoly  they  abuse.  And 
so  in  the  name  of  the  restoration  of  equal  rights  to  our 
people  the  nationalization  of  our  railroads  is  de- 
manded. 

.Such  nationalization  accomplished  and  an  equality 
of  rates  restored,  many  monopolies  now  built  upon  in- 
equality and  levying  exactions  upon  the  public  will 
collapse.  But  some  monopolies  will  not  topple,  for 
they  rest  on  the  ownership  of  all  the  sources  of  produc- 
tion; in  other  words,  are  monopolies  based  upon  na- 
ture. And  such  monopolies  the  state  cannot  destroy, 
it  must  assume.  That  is  the  rule  that  equality  de- 
mands, that  we  should  follow.  Where  monopoly  ex- 
ists, sapping  the  vitals  of  industry,  it  must  be  de- 
stroyed or  the  government  must  become  the  monopol- 
ist. Again,  there  are  enterprises  that  can  be  better 
and  more  economically  carried  on  under  one  head 
than  many,  enterprises  that  are  national  in  their  scope, 
and  to  nationalize  such  enterprises  and  put  them  un- 


324  THE    GREAT   ISSUES. 

der  one  head  is  to  the  interest  of  the  public.  What 
such  enterprises  are  it  is  for  the  people  to  decide. 
That  they  be  given  opportunity  to  decide  is  their  right. 

So  we  see  what  the  social  revolution  railed  at  by 
"  The  Manufacturer,"  railed  at  by  the  profiters  from 
special  privileges,  means.  It  means  that  the  plu- 
tocracy be  overthrown,  that  the  promise  of  life,  liberty 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  promise  given  at  the 
birth  of  our  nation,  may  be  realized.  Liberty  is  one  of 
the  inalienable  rights  of  man,  but  liberty  is  not  license 
to  trample  upon  the  rights  of  others,  to  despoil  others 
of  the  fruits  of  their  labor.  It  means  that  every  man 
has  an  inalienable  right  to  engage  in  what  trade  he 
sees  fit,  to  act  as  he  sees  fit,  so  long  as  he  does  not 
trespass  upon  the  rights  of  others,  so  long  as  he  does 
not  conduct  himself  in  a  way  to  the  detriment  of 
his  country  or  his  neighbors.  And  again  is  pursuit  of 
happiness,  the  right  to  which  is  an  inalienable  one, 
dependent  upon  an  equality  of  opportunity  and  exemp- 
tion from  all  exactions  at  the  hands  of  monopoly. 

The  founders  of  our  Eepublic  promised  to  them- 
selves and  their  posterity  the  realization  of  these  in- 
alienable rights.  But  we,  their  posterit}',  have  not 
looked  after  them  with  the  care  that  we  should.  As  a 
result  such  rights  have  been  trampled  upon.  For  the 
money-powerful  liberty  has  become  license  to  trespass 
upon  the  poor,  to  deprive  them  of  their  rights,  de- 
prive them  of  the  right  to  engage  in  such  trades  as 
they  see  fit.  And  so  are  the  many  denied  the  right  to 
pursuit  of  happiness,  for  in  the  realms  of  industry 
there  is  a  reign  not  of  equality  but  of  inequality  of 
opportunities. 

Thus  we  are  brought  to  the  necessity  of  battling  not 
merely  to  maintain  but  regain  the  rights  upon  which 
our  Eepublic  is  reared.  For  many  years  have  the  old 
parties  divided  the  strength  of  our  people  that  should 


PLUTOCRACY    VS.    THE    PEOPLE.  '625 

have  been  exerted  to  turn  back  the  encroachments  of 
plutocracy,  for  many  years  have  both  old  parties  been 
drifting  towards  this  same  plutocracy.  And  now  with 
this  plutocracy  firmly  rooted  our  people  awaken.  A 
realignment  of  parties  must  inevitably  follow.  We 
have  seen  how  the  manufacturers,  in  seeking  after  for- 
eign markets,  have  drifted  away  from  protection  and  a 
body  of  them  thrown  in  their  lot  with  the  plutocracy. 
We  have  seen  the  mask  thrown  oil'  plutocracy,  and  tbc 
plutocrats,  asserting  their  right  to  rule,  throwing 
down  the  gauntlet  to  those  who  may  deny. 

Thus  is  the  challenge  offered,  thus  tbe  lines  are  be- 
ing drawn.  Such  challenge  we  must  take  up  or  suffer 
the  trampling  out  of  democratic  government  in  the 
North  American  continent,  acknowledge  the  failure  of 
the  greatest  attempt  ever  made  to  establish  a  govern- 
ment of,  by  and  for  the  people. 

The  lines  of  battle  are  being  drawn  for  1900,  not 
upon  the  issue  of  free  trade  or  protection,  nor  the 
question  of  bimetallic  or  gold  standard,  but  upon  the 
true  issue:  That  of  plutocracy  vs.  the  people. 

Let  then  all  men  worthy  of  the  name  American,  gird 
on  their  armor  for  the  coming  battle,  on  the  issue  of 
which  hangs  the  fate  of  democratic  government.  Shall 
it  be  social  revolution  or  decay,  rule  by  the  people  or 
plutocracy?  We  have  faith  in  the  American  people 
under  the  thumb  of  plutocracy  as  they  are. 


THE  LABORER  AND  HIS  HIRE. 

[September  2d,  1898.] 

WE  wish  it  here  to  be  understood  that  we  use 
the  term  laborer  in  no  narrow  sense,  but  so 
as  to  include  all  those  who,  by  their  labor, 
directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  exercise  of  brain  power 
no  less  than  muscle,  contribute  to  the  production  of 
wealth.  The  unskilled  laborer,  the  trained  and  alert 
mechanic  whose  productive  power  has  been  multiplied 
perhaps  several  fold  by  his  training  and  practice,  the 
successful  employer  with  the  rarer  ability  of  organiz- 
ing industry,  ordering  the  distribution  and  marketing 
of  products,  directing  labor  so  as  to  make  it  more  pro- 
ductive— all  these  we  classify  as  laborers,  for  all  alike 
labor  in  the  production  of  wealth.  And  to  the  greater 
or  lesser  degree  that  each  by  his  labor  contributes  to 
the  production  of  wealth  is  each  entitled  to  remun- 
eration, for  to  each  laborer  rightfully  belong  the  fruits 
of  his  toil. 

The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire  and  the  worthiness 
of  each  is  measured  by  the  productiveness  of  his  labor. 
And  in  justice  rates  of  wages,  or  wages  and  profits, 
for  it  is  as  profits  that  the  employer  draws  his  wage, 
ought  to  conform  to  this  measure,  and  if  they  did  no 
one  Avould  have  just  cause  to  complain  of  any  in- 
equitable distribution  of  the  fruits  of  labor,  no  reason 
to  grudge  the  successful  employer  his  larger  share  in 
the  wealth  produced,  even  though  that  share  were 
many  fold  greater  than  the  share  of  any  unskilled  lab- 
orer, an  humbler  partner  in  the  production  of  wealth. 
Rather  would  the  larger  share  going  to  such  employer 


THE    LABORER    AND    HIS    HIRE.  327 

but  serve  to  stimulate  ambition  in  the  more  humble 
laborer  for  himself  or  children,  incite  him  to  make 
effort  to  fit  himself  or  fit  his  children  to  rise  in  the 
scale,  make  their  labor  contribute  in  increasing  ratio 
to  the  wealth  produced  and  so  emulate  such  employer. 
And  in  years  gone  by  our  people  gathered  such  in- 
spiration from  the  successes  of  their  fellows.  They 
saw  the  chance  of  raising  themselves  as  others  had 
before  and  were,  of  reaching  the  successes  that  others 
had  sought  and  reached.  And  so  they  strove  in  health- 
ful emulation  with  one  another,  inspired  not  with  envy 
of  their  more  successful  fellows  and  the  desire  to  pull 
such  down,  but  with  the  hope  of  putting  themselves  on 
an  equality  with  such  by  lifting  themselves  up.  But 
with  opportunities  to  rise  as  others  have  risen  cut  off, 
discontent  is  bred  and  rightfully  bred. 

THE    RIGHT    TO    EQUAL    OPPORTUNITIES. 

Men  have  not  equal  capabilities,  all  are  not  equally 
able,  energetic  and  progressive,  some  develop  or  ac- 
quire qualities  that  especially  fit  them  to  organize  in- 
dustry, and  by  such  organization  contribute  many  fold 
more  to  the  production  of  wealth  than  any  of  their 
fellow-laborers  working  under  their  captaincy,  and  so 
earn  and  draw  greater  rewards,  but  all  men  are  of 
right  entitled  to  equal  opportunities  to  develop  their 
abilities,  of  right  entitled  to  equal  opportunities  of 
education  and  training  such  as,  if  seized,  will  enable 
them  to  rise.  And  such  opportunities  have  all  men 
the  right  to  demand  of  the  community  for  their  chil- 
dren. Because  parents  have  not  risen,  because  equal 
opportunities  to  which  they  were  rightfully  entithMl, 
op])ortunities  of  education  and  training  and  prepara- 
tion for  intelligent  toil  and  effort  have  been  denied  to 
them,  or  because  they  have  failed  to  make  use  of  those 
opportunities,  is  no  reason  that  their  children  should 


328  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

be  denied  opportunities  of  fitting  themselves  for  toil 
and  lifting  themselves  in  the  scale  of  labor  such  as  are 
open  to  the  children  of  those  who  have  prospered. 
These  opportunities  it  is  the  duty  of  the  community, 
a  community  that  teaches  the  equality  of  man,  to  ac- 
cord, 

EDUCATION  AND  A  FAIR  START, 

If  the  children  of  the  less  successful  fail  to  rise  with 
equal  opportunities  accorded  to  them  the  community 
is  not  to  blame,  but  the  community  is  in  duty  hound 
to  accord  to  the  children  of  the  less  successful  such 
opportunities  for  developing  their  abilities  that  if  they 
show  extraordinary  ability  they  may  take  rank  with 
the  most  successful  and  reap  the  rewards  of  such.  This 
duty  we  now  to  a  degree  recognize  in  our  public  school 
system,  but  our  whole  duty  in  this  direction  will  not 
have  been  fulfilled  until  we  not  only  ofFer  higher  edu- 
cation to  all  who  in  the  lower  schools  so  avail  of  their 
opportunities  as  to  show  themselves  worthy  of  it,  but 
until  we  make  it  possible  for  such  to  spare  the  time  to 
acquire  it.  And  this  many  cannot  now  do  for  want 
of  means,  because  of  the  inability  of  parents  to  sup- 
port them  while  acquiring  such  education,  because  of 
the  necessity  of  going  at  once  to  work  and  earning  a 
livelihood  even  though  illy  prepared,  and  destined 
therefore  to  go  through  life  under  a  handicap  that  may 
often  suffice  to  close  to  them  opportunities  that  other- 
wise they  might  seize. 

We  must  then  either  stand  prepared  to  give  assist- 
ance to  those  to  whom  opportunities  of  acquiring  edu- 
cation are  closed  by  poverty,  which  means  that  we 
must  extend  like  assistance  to  all,  whether  in  need  or 
not,  unless  we  would  create  distinctions  that  would 
be  more  or  less  degrading,  or  we  must  better  the  lot 
of  the  humbler  walks  of  our  laboring  population  so 


THE    LABORER    AND    HIS    HIRE.  339 

that  there  will  be  need  of  none  binding  their  chil- 
dren to  work  ere  they  have  outgrown  childhood,  and 
while  yet  they  are  wanting  that  full  education  and 
training  that  will  best  prepare  thcni  for  battling  with 
the  world,  harnessing  nature's  forces,  making  their 
labor  more  productive,  raising  the  remuneration  of 
their  toil.  And  this  latter  we  can  do  by  simply  ren- 
dering justice,  seeing  that  all  may  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  lal)()r  and  all  secure  the  fruits  thereof.  Of 
course,  in  cases  where  death  or  illness  deprives  a 
growing  family  of  its  bread  winner  the  stern  necessity 
might  even  then  be  presented  to  the  older  children  of 
going  to  work  regardless  of  any  ill  preparation.  But 
in  such  case  the  assistance  of  the  community  could  l)e 
given  without  degrading,  given  not  as  a  condescension, 
but  as  a  right,  and  as  such  it  ought  to  be  given. 

The  people  of  this  western  world  of  ours  have  so 
far  progressed  in  productive  power  that  none  should 
suffer  from  want,  none  be  so  poor  as  to  be  obliged  to 
put  minors  to  work  without  that  preparation  conducive 
to  the  leading  of  most  successful  and  happy  lives.  Nor 
would  there  be  any  if  the  wealth  produced  were  justly 
distributed.  On  the  contrary,  opportunities  for  the 
development  of  faculties  and  capabilities  would  be  of- 
fered to  our  children  such  as  are  now  closed  to  many, 
abilities  would  be  discovered,  and  develoi)ed  and  put  to 
use  that  now  are  destined  to  lie  latent  and  be  lost  to 
the  world,  there  would  l)e  such  progress,  such  reading 
of  nature's  laws  and  harnessing  of  her  willing  forces 
as  the  world  has  never  seen,  nor  even  dreamed  of. 

DISMAL  DOCTRINES — THE  "  LIVING  WAGE." 

But  here  we  are  met  with  the  objection  that  the  hire 
of  labor  cannot  be  increased,  and  an  old  law  of  des- 
pair, child  of  the  teachers  of  the  dismal  science,  is 
dragged  forth  to  prove  that  it  cannot,  that  we  have 


330  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

got  to  put  up  with  evil,  that  there  is  no  escape,  that 
an  inexorable  and  insurmountable  law  of  nature 
stands  in  the  way — just  as  if  nature's  laws,  laws  of 
God's  making,  were  ever  laws  of  degradation  and  in- 
justice and  despair;  just  as  if  obeyed  they  ever  lead  us 
anywhere  but  over  paths  of  progress,  hope  and  love. 
However,  we  are  told  that  the  unskilled  workman  now 
gets  a  living  wage,  and  that  he  can  never  expect  any- 
thing more.  Eaise  the  rate  of  wages,  raise  the  ability 
of  the  poor  laborer  to  raise  a  larger  l)rood  of  children, 
of  future  workers,  and  as  surely  as  the  sun  rises  and 
sets  he  will  do  so,  with  the  inevitable  result  that  final- 
ly the  labor  market  will  become  overstocked  again  and 
wages  driven  down  to  a  mere  living  basis.  Thus  it  is 
that  we  have  presented  to  us  the  old  bestial  law  of 
Malthus,  and  in  its  name  asked  to  suspend,  as  useless, 
all  efforts  to  better  the  lot  of  the  laboring  population. 
An  acceptable  doctrine  was  this  to  the  first  factory 
lords  of  Britain  who,  with  heartless  disregard  for  the 
welfare  of  their  workers,  through  the  employment 
of  women  and  children  long  hours,  and  in  the  foulest 
of  rooms,  amidst  the  most  unsanitary  of  surroundings, 
and  through  the  grinding  down  of  wages  had  builded 
large  fortunes  and  were  too  glad  to  embrace  it  as  re- 
lieving them  of  all  responsibility  for  the  distress  they 
had  wrought.  A  conscience  easing  doctrine  it  was  in- 
deed to  those  who  profited  from  grinding  down  the 
weak.  Only  too  glad  were  they  to  accept  this  cloak 
and  throw  it  in  the  e3^es  of  whomsoever  reproached 
them  for  lifting  no  hand  to  lighten  the  lot  of  their 
toiling  brothers.  They  made  answer,  and  we  doubt 
not  came  to  believe  that  it  was  well  founded:  "Ah  ! 
only  too  glad  would  we  be  to  help  them,  but  we  cannot, 
it  is  quite  beyond  our  power.  For  to  raise  the  rate  of 
wages  would  but  end  in  making  more  hands  to  work, 
more  mouths  to  feed,  and  there  being  no  work  for 


THE    LABORER    AXD   HIS    HIRE.  331 

such  hands,  more  distress " — just  as  if  those  hands 
could  not  produce  more  wealth,  if  given  the  oppor- 
tunity, than  the  mouths  and  backs  of  those  hands 
would  consume. 

DEDUCTIONS   FROM   THE   LAWS  OF  EVOLUTION FALSE 

AXD  TRUE. 

And  finally  we  are  told  that  this  dismal  law  is  one 
of  the  laws  of  evolution,  just  as  if  the  laws  of  evolu- 
tion were  laws  leading  to  degradation  and  not  pro- 
gress. But  it  is  rejoined  that  this  law  is  one  of 
progress,  that  it  is  but  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  law  of 
the  survival  of  the  fittest,  that  by  the  dire  test  of  long 
hours,  filthy  work  rooms,  starvation  wages,  the  weak 
are  weeded  out  while  only  the  strong,  those  fittest  to 
perpetuate  the  race  survive.  But  can  anyone  imagine 
that  the  race  is  bettered  and  strengthened  by  such 
trials  and  hardships?  On  the  contrary,  must  not  the 
whole  be  weakened  and  degraded?  Must  not  such 
things  finally  stamp  out  ambition  and  hope,  chill  the 
fires  of  patriotism,  weaken  a  nation,  make  it  a  prey  to 
its  rivals?  And  then  will  we  not  see  the  law  of  the 
survival  of  the  fittest  working  as  we  are  taught  to 
Ijelieve  it  does  work,  as  a  law  of  progress,  as  a  just  law? 
Will  we  not  see  the  nation  ruled  by  the  men  of  money, 
and  with  heartless  injustice  towards  the  workers  suc- 
cumb as  the  weakest,  and  will  we  not  see  the  nation 
where  justice  rules,  where  there  is  nearest  approach 
to  an  equality  of  opportunity  and  the  weak  are  not 
despoiled  of  the  surplus  fruits  of  their  toil  and  left 
with  but  a  mere  living  wage,  the  badge  of  degradation 
and  slavery — will  we  not  see  this  nation  rise  up  as  the 
strongest?  Of  course  we  will;  intuitive  faith  in  an  all- 
just  God  of  love  tells  us  so,  and  if  there  be  any  doubt- 
ing agnostic,  agnostic  none  the  less  for  being  a  pro- 
fessing churchman,  or  even  teacher  in  the  pulpit  of 

1 


332  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

some  temple  of  Mammon  labeled  a  Church  of  Christ, 
let  him  look  back  upon  the  history  of  the  world,  and 
ho  will  find  the  proof.  If  ruling  England,  alarmed  '>y 
the  threatening  growl  of  the  multitude,  or  stirred  by 
man's  inhumanity  to  man,  had  not  in  part  abandoned 
this  heartless  rule  despite  her  theories,  done  a  meed  of 
justice  by  her  workers,  long  ere  this  would  she  have 
gone  down  or  come  up  rejuvenated  and  disenthralled 
through  the  throes  of  revolution. 

THE  laborer's  DUE. 

Finally,  is  not  the  laborer  worthy  of  his  hire?  And 
is  the  hire  of  which  he  is  worthy  only  a  bare  living? 
Is  it  a  scant  diet  of  coarse  bread  and  roots  eked  out 
perhaps  with  a  ration  of  poor  meat  once  a  week,  is  it 
a  thatched  hut  or  squalid  tenement  as  an  apology  for 
a  home  and  but  sufficient  clothing  to  keep  the  body 
from  freezing?  Is  it  a  wage  barely  sufficient  to  en- 
able him  to  bring  into  the  world  a  brood  of  children  to 
be  bound  out  to  labor,  bound  out  by  the  necessi- 
ties of  parents,  scarce  they  can  toddle  and 
thus  keep  the  labor  market  supplied — is  this  all 
the  hire  of  which  the  laborer  is  worthy?  We 
declare  it  is  a  base  assumption.  The  hire  of  which  the 
laborer  is  worthy  can  be  measured  and  measured  alone 
by  the  wealth  that  he  produces.  In  the  proportion 
that  each  man  contributes  by  his  labor  to  the  produc- 
tion of  w^ealth  is  he  entitled  to  reward,  entitled  to 
share  in  the  wealth  produced.  Wealth  to  an  amount 
equal  to  that  produced  ])y  his  labor  is  each  laborer  en- 
titled to  receive  and  enjoy.  Or,  rather  would  we  say, 
wealth  equal  to  the  amount  that  each  laborer  can  pro- 
duce, for  opportunity  to  work,  to  employ  one's  ener- 
gies and  abilities  in  producing  wealth  should  be  de- 
nied to  no  man,  should  be  secured  to  all,  for  to  tol- 
erate a  state  of  society  wherein  the  few,  securing  a 


THE    LABORKH    AND    HIS    HIRE.  333 

monopoly  of  the  tools  of  j)roduction,  may  keep  the 
many  from  making  use  of  their  most  valuable  if  not 
only  source  of  wealth,  their  labor,  where  the  many  are 
thus  denied  opportunities  to  exert  their  energies  in 
the  production  of  wealth  and  that  of  right  are  theirs, 
where  they  are  thus  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  beg- 
ging for  that  which  belongs  to  them,  the  right  to  labor, 
and  as  a  consequence  the  few  are  in  position  to  levy  ' 
a  tax  on  the  right  to  labor,  demand  that  the  many  sur- 
render the  surplus  fruits  of  their  toil  as  the  price  of 
work,  is  to  permit  the  strong  to  trample  upon  the 
rights  of  the  weak.  And  this  it  is  the  first  duty  of  a 
Just  government  to  prevent. 

GIVEN   THE    HIRE    OF    WHICH  HE  IS    WORTHY  THERE 

WOULD   BE   NO   WANT,   NO   FEAR  OF   WANT, 

NO  LAGGINO  OF  PATRIOTISAI, 

Such,  then,  the  wealth  that  each  laborer  can  produce 
if  given — what  of  right  belongs  to  him  and  should  be 
secured  to  him — full  opportunity  for  the  exercise  of 
his  abilities  is  the  hire  of  which  he  is  worthy.  And 
the  resources  of  our  continent  are  so  great,  the  pro- 
gress made  in  the  art  and  science  of  extracting  wealth 
from  mother  earth  so  marvelous  and  the  wealth  pro- 
ducing powers  of  our  people,  even  the  most  unskilled, 
so  large,  that  the  humbb^st  of  our  laborers  would  have 
a  sufiiiciency  to  lift  him  beyond  the  fear  of  want  and 
introduce  him  to  the  comforts  of  modern  life  if  given 
the  hire  of  which  he  is  worthy.  And  this  hire  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  nation,  if  it  would  be  just  and  would 
progress,  to  secure  to  him.  It  can  do  so  with  little 
friction  if  it  try  and  with  great  benetit  to  the  nation, 
for  then  there  would  be  no  labor  going  to  waste,  then 
all  would  be  engaged  in  wealth  production,  then  the 
humblest  laborer  would  be  filled  with  the  inspiration 
of  hope,  the  inspiration  that  leads  men  to  throw  their 


334  THE   GREAT  ISSUES. 

brain  as  well  as  their  muscle  into  their  work,  and  it 
is  the  work  of  the  brain  that  brings  greatest  results 
and  greatest  rewards,  that  increases  tlie  productive- 
ness and  pay  of  labor  while  lightening  the  toil  of  the 
hand.  All  of  which  marks  progress,  incites  to  further 
progress  and  adds  to  the  strength  of  a  nation  not  only 
by  increasing  its  wealth,  but  by  laying  deeper  the 
foundations  of  patriotism  by  giving  to  all  men  some- 
thing worthy  of  defending.  Let  the  masses  of  the 
people  once  feel  that  their  government  ignores  their 
interests  and  is  constituted  in  the  interest  of  the  few, 
and  that  government  can  no  longer  depend  on  the  pa- 
triotism of  the  people  to  uphold  it,  it  must  depend  on 
a  hireling  army,  for  men  will  not  voluntarily  make  sac- 
rifices to  uphold  a  government  that  they  feel  makes 
no  sacrifices  for  them.  They  may  make  sacrifices  to 
uphold  such  government  from  fear,  but  not  out  of 
willingness,  and  when  an  empire  reaches  this  stage  it 
is  standing  on  its  last  legs  and  on  very  slim  founda- 
tions, though  the  glamor  of  militarism  may  give  to 
those  legs  the  appearance  of  great  solidity. 

EXCUSING  OURSELVES  BY  BLAMIKG  GOD. 

But  how  can  the  nation  secure  to  the  laborer  the  hire 
of  which  he  is  worthy  and  so  guard  against  the  dangers 
to  an  empire  of  a  lagging  patriotism?  We  ask,  is  the 
nation  impotent  to  secure  justice?  We  should  think 
not,  we  know  it  is  not  yet  in  some  quarters  we  get  the 
uncertain  answer:  Well,  no,  not  exactly  impotent,  but 
then  you  know  the  hire  of  the  laborer  is  rigidly  fixed 
by  natural  laws,  and  of  course  there  is  no  use  bucking 
up  against  such  laws.  If  the  laborer  does  not  get  all 
the  hire  he  is  entitled  to  there  is  no  helping  it.  But 
since  his  hire  is  fixed  by  natural  laws  it  must  be  that 
he  is  getting  all  that  bo  onght  to,  all  that  he  is 
worthy  of.     In   fact,   though   the  laborer's   hire   does 


THE   LABOHEB   A^D   HIS    HIRE.  335 

often  seem  insufficient  and  the  laborer  is  always  insist- 
ing that  it  is,  we  might  as  well  make  up  our  minds  that 
he  is  getting  all  the  hire  of  which  he  is  worthy,  all  that 
he  possibly  can  get  and  dismiss  the  matter  as  one  quite 
beyond  our  control,  one  fixed  ])y  natural  laws,  and  one 
which  it  is  not  our  business  to  concern  ourselves  with. 
So  if  the  laborer  feels  aggrieved  he  might  as  well  give 
up  petitioning  his  employers  and  draw  up  an  indict- 
ment against  the  Almighty  for  imposing  such  natural 
laws  upon  the  employers  that  it  is  beyond  their  power 
to  comply  with  such  demands,  however  just  and  rea- 
sonable they  may  appear.  And  nothing  coming  of 
such  indictment  he  might  as  well,  without  further  pro- 
test, sink  down  into  a  state  of  hopeless  drudgery.  For 
what  is  the  use  of  fighting  against  fate? 

THE  WAGE  FUND. 

Such  is  some  more  of  the  dismal  dectrine  of  the 
English  economists  of  the  middle  century  so  well  serv- 
ing as  a  defense  of  those  employers  seeking  to  swell 
profits  by  grinding  down  labor,  and  that  is  now  raked 
up  on  occasions,  exploded  though  it  has  been  these 
many  years.  It  was  reared  around  the  bald  assump- 
tion that  a  certain  part  of  the  savings,  the  accumu- 
lated capital  of  a  nation  was,  by  force  of  natural  laws, 
set  aside  as  a  fund  for  the  payment  of  wages  and 
profits,  that  this  fund  could  only  be  gradually  in- 
creased by  the  addition  of  new  savings,  that  the  size 
of  profits  and  wages  depend  on  the  size  of  this  fund, 
that  the  rate  of  wages  was  fixed  by  the  size  of  the  part 
of  this  fund  applicable  to  wage  payments,  and  the 
number  of  wage-earners  in  the  country  among  whom 
it  must  be  divided.  In  short,  it  was  assumed  that 
wages  were  paid  out  of  a  certain  portion  of  the  capital 
of  the  nation  or  the  so-called  wage  fund,  and  that  the 


33G  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

rate  of  wages  was  rigidly  determined  by  the  size  of 
this  fund  and  the  niiinljer  of  divisors  or  workmen. 

So  there  was  no  use  of  workmen  protesting  if  their 
wages  were  insufficient.  They  could  hope  for  nothing 
better  save  from  the  slow  building  up  of  this  fund  by 
the  accretion  of  new  accumulations  of  capital,  and 
even  then  they  would  gain  nothing  if  population  and 
the  number  of  hands  demanding  work  and  a  share  of 
such  funds  should  increase  in  like  ratio.  Thus  argued 
some  about  the  futility  of  strikes.  But  others,  ac- 
cepting this  general  theory,  took  exception  here.  They 
declared  that  the  wage  fund  was  also  the  profit  fund, 
that  out  of  the  same  fund  came  both  profits  and 
wages.  Therefore  the  workmen  could  better  their  lot 
if  they  could  reduce  the  profits  of  their  employers, 
while  the  employers  could  only  increase  their  profits  by 
impinging  on  the  wages  of  the  workmen.  So  the  nor- 
mal relation  between  employer  and  workman  must  be 
one  of  conflict,  for  the  only  possibility  that  one  has  of 
bettering  his  own  position  is  at  the  expense  of  the 
other.  In  short,  rising  wages  must  be  accompanied 
with  falling  profits;  rising  profits  with  falling  wages. 

That  such  an  absurd  doctrine  should  ever  have 
found  acceptance  seems  impossible,  yet  absolute  cre- 
dence was  placed  in  this  theory  by  the  doctrinaire 
English  and  American  economists  as  late  as  twenty- 
five  years  ago.  It  never  occurred  to  its  propounders 
that  the  amount  of  water  that  can  be  taken  from  a 
reservoir  depends  more  upon  the  rate  at  which  water 
is  pumped  in  than  upon  the  size  of  the  reservoir,  that 
the  rate  of  wages  that  can  be  drawn  from  the  wage 
fund  depends  not  upon  the  size  of  that  fund  but  the 
rapidity  with  which  the  fruits  of  labor  are  poured  in. 
that  the  pa}Tnent  of  wages  does  not  lead  to  any  deple- 
tion of  this  fund  but  rather  to  its  increase,  that  the 
greater  the  wealth  that  is  produced  and  poured  in  the 


THE    LABORER    AND    HIS    HIRE.  337 

greater  the  wealth  that  can  be  taken  out,  that  hence 
by  working  in  harmony  and  increasing  the  productive- 
ness of  labor  the  rewards  of  employers  and  wage-earn- 
ers may  alike  be  increased,  that  this  is  the  surest  and 
shortest  road  to  success  for  both,  that  their  interests 
do  not  conflict,  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  with  the 
exception  of  those  employers  who  by  combination  and 
with  the  aid  of  special  favors,  rebates  and  discrimina- 
tions have  monopolized  the  means  of  production  or 
distribution,  their  interests  run  in  like  lines,  profits 
and  wages  rising  and  falling  together.  In  short,  wages 
are  not  paid  out  of  capital;  something  else  makes  up 
the  fund  out  of  which  labor  is  paid  and  that  is  labor's 
own  productiveness.  We  can  take  water  out  of  a 
reservoir  as  fast  as  we  pour  it  in,  take  wages  out  of  the 
wage  reservoir  as  fast  as  we  may  pour  the  fruits  of 
labor  in.  So  the  more  fruits  labor  produces  and  the 
faster  we  pour  them  in  the  more  wages  may  we  draw. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  wages  of  labor  are,  or  rather  ought 
to  be,  and  would  be  under  free  and  equal  conditions, 
limited  only  l)y  its  own  productiveness.  And  in  the 
creation  of  these  fruits  employers  and  wage-earners 
are  co-laborers;  to  the  extent  that  each  contributes 
toward  the  production  of  these  fruits  is  each  entitled 
to  draw  recompense.  Such  is  the  just  law  for  the 
regulation  of  wages,  such  is  the  law  by  which  we 
should  abide. 

CAPITAL    AXD    INTEREST. 

But  though  wages  are  not  paid  out  of  capital,  and 
though  the  rate  of  wages  is  primarily  dependent  upon 
the  size  of  no  so-called  wage  fund, but  upon  the  produc- 
tiveness of  labor,  let  no  one  be  so  foolish  as  to  suppose 
that  accumulated  capital  does  not  fill  a  useful,  indeed 
necessary  place  in  the  working  of  our  industrial  or- 
ganism, or  that  those  who  have  accumulated  it  and 


338  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

supply  that  which  is  needed  to  make  possible  the 
carrying  on  of  diversified  industry  are  not  entitled  to 
some  reward  for  the  use  of  their  savings.  Indeed,  it 
is  necessary  that  we  give  some  reward,  some  incentive 
for  the  accumulation  and  embarking  of  capital  in  pro- 
duction, or  else  the  embarking  of  such  capital  would 
cease  and  progress  be  halted.  It  by  no  means  follows 
that  the  laying  by  of  savings  would  cease  if  such  sav- 
ings could  not  be  put  out  at  interest  and  made  to 
yield  return.  On  the  contrary,  man's  desire  of  mak- 
ing provision  for  the  future,  of  laying  up  a  little  hoard 
on  which  he  might  fall  back  should  sickness  overtake 
him  and  incapacitate  him  from  work,  and  which  would 
give  him  the  comforting  assurance  that  those  dear  to 
him  and  perhaps  helpless  would  not  be  left  in  abject 
want  and  dependent  on  the  charity  of  others  in  the  case 
of  his  death,  would  be  quite  sufficient  to  lead  him  to  lay 
by  such  savings  as  he  could  gather.  But  he  would  not 
let  others  have  the  use  of  such  savings  if  they  would 
pay  him  nothing  for  such  use,  though  it  would  be  valu- 
able to  them  and  enable  them  to  increase  the  produc- 
tiveness of  their  labor.  If  he  could  not  profit  anything 
by  loaning  out  such  savings  he  would  simply  keep 
those  savings  by  himself,  not  put  them  out  in  the 
hands  of  those  who  would  risk  them  in  productive  en- 
terprises. In  short,  he  would  simply  lock  them  up  or 
hide  such  savings,  and  then  we  would  simply  have 
hoarding,  not  the  accumulation  of  active  productive 
capital,  and  the  gathering  of  such  savings  would  in  no 
way  add  to  the  power  of  men  to  further  diversify  their 
employment  and  so  increase  the  productiveness  of 
their  labor. 

A  people  may  go  on  gathering  and  hoarding  savings 
indefinitely  without  stimulating  industrial  development 
in  any  way,  or  indeed  making  such  development  possi- 
ble.    A  people  that  does  not  hoard  its  earnings  but 


THE    LABORER    AXD    HIS    HIRE.  339 

puts  them  into  productive  enterprises  and  machinery, 
uses  them  to  acquire  more  efl&cient  tools,  increase  the 
fertility  of  its  fields,  economize  its  labor,  will  add  im- 
measurably to  its  productive  power.  But  men  will  not 
so  invest  their  savings  unless  they  may  share  in  some 
degree  in  the  increased  production  of  wealth  following 
upon  such  investment.  In  short,  interest  for  the  use 
of  their  savings  must  be  held  out  to  them,  and  a  rate  | 
of  interest  that  amounts  to  more  than  an  equivalent, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  loaner,  for  the  risk  of  loss  taken,  or 
else  such  savings  will  be  hoarded,  not  added  to  the 
available  capital  fund  of  the  nation,  for  it  is  quite  evi- 
dent that  no  man  will  loan  out  his  savings  unless  he  is 
satisfied  that  the  rate  of  interest  is  more  than  an 
equivalent  for  the  risk  of  loss  and  that  he  will  profit 
from  the  transaction. 

And  here  let  it  be  said  that  he  w  ho  accumulates  sav- 
ings may  see  advantage  in  employing  his  own  savings 
in  productive  works  over  loaning  out  such  savings  to 
others.  But  in  this  case  the  employer  is  his  own  capi- 
talist and  virtually  pays  interest  to  himself,  and  it  is 
the  hope  of  reaping  such  interest  that  induces  him  to 
put  his  surplus  earnings  into  his  business  with  the 
view  of  enlarging  it.  If  he  did  not  believe  that  earn- 
ings so  put  back  would  yield  a  return  and  a  greater 
return  than  they  would  yield  if  loaned  out  to  some 
other,  he  would  not  put  such  earnings  back,  but  would 
take  them  out  and  invest  them  outside.  So  let  no  one 
suppose  that  an  employer  capitalist  does  not  receive 
any  interest,  any  return  upon  his  accumulated  capital 
because  no  entries  under  the  head  of  interest  appear  i 
in  his  income  account.  That  interest  return  is  cov- 
ered up  under  the  name  of  profits,  but  it  is  none  the 
less  really  there.  In  short,  in  such  case  profits  are  not 
alone  to  be  considered  as  the  wages  of  the  employer, 
but  as  also  including  the  interest  of  the  capitalist,  the 
rent  of  the  landlord. 


340  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

But  what  is  it  that  induces  a  manufacturer  to  put 
returns  back  into  factory  and  mill  to  enlarge  and  in- 
crease productiveness  ?  What  is  the  question  he  asks 
liimself  when  deciding  whether  to  put  such  returns 
hack  or  take  them  out  and  enjoy  them,  or  rather  when 
deciding  on  what  if  any  proportion  to  take  out,  what 
to  take  out?  Is  it  not  what  present  pleasures  am  I  will- 
ing to  forego  for  the  sake  of  enjoying  future  and  great- 
er ones?  And  if  the  prospective  increased  returns 
from  putting  such  returns  back  are  comparatively 
small  he  will  be  much  inclined  to  take  such  returns  out 
and  spend  them  at  once  for  present  enjoyment;  if  pros- 
pective returns  are  large  the  incentive  to  save  and  in- 
vest rather  than  to  at  once  consume  and  enjoy  earnings 
will  be  great.  And  what  is  true  of  the  manufacturing 
capitalist  is  true  of  any  capitalist,  true  of  him  who 
loans  liis  savings  to  others,  as  it  is  true  of  him  who 
employs  his  own  savings  in  production.  So  interest 
may  be  regarded  as  the  reward  of  abstinence  and  sav- 
ing, and  the  greater  this  reward  the  greater  will  be  the 
stimulus  to  saving. 

But  what  is  it  that  makes  men  willing  to  pay  this 
reward,  this  price,  this  interest,  for  the  use  of  what 
men  have  saved?  It  is  the  power  that  such  accumu- 
lated capital  gives  to  men  to  carry  on  diversified  em- 
ployments, add  to  the  productiveness  of  labor.  The 
demand  for  capital  is  dependent  on  the  increased  earn- 
ing power  that  it  may  give  to  those  who  borrow.  Of 
course,  no  man  will  be  tempted  to  borrow  money  to 
enlarge  his  powers  of  production  unles.-^  he  feels  that 
he  can  earn  more  with  such  money  than  he  must  pay 
for  its  use.  And,  on  the  other  lumd,  the  supply  of 
capital  is  dependent  on  the  degree  to  which  producers 
may  abstain  from  the  present  enjoyment  of  the  earn- 
ings of  their  toil  and  the  amount  of  such  savings  that 
they  put  aside  and  accumulate.     And  the  degree  to 


THK    LABORER    AND    HIS    HIKE.  .Ml 

which  men  abstain  is  dependent  on  two  things,  first, 
on  the  size  oi'  the  reward  of  abstaining;  second,  on  the 
severity  of  the  sacrifices  which  they  must  make  to  save, 
the  intensity  of  the  desire  to  gratify  ph'asurcs,  and 
that  they  must  forego  in  saving.  And  this  intensit) 
of  desire  falls  with  man's  increased  earnings  and  power 
to  command  the  comforts  and  luxuries  of  life,  the  se- 
verity of  the  sacrifices  demanded  declines  as  the  pro- 
ductiveness of  man's  labor  increases  and  wealth  is  pro- 
duced with  less  effort.  So  as  a  nation  progresses  the 
remuneration  of  abstinence,  the  rate  of  interest  suffi- 
cient to  induce  those  who  have  produced  wealth  to 
store  it  up,  in  place  of  immediately  consuming  it  for 
the  gratification  of  personal  tastes  and  appetites, natur- 
ally falls.  In  short,  the  sacrifices  that  the  saviug  and 
supplying  of  capital  call  for  become  less  severe  and 
men  grow  readier  to  accept  a  lesser  price  for  their 
making. 

CAN   WE    BANISH   INTEREST? 

Now  of  course  these  capital  charges  must  be  met  out 
of  the  wealth  produced,  must  be  paid  at  the  expense 
of  the  employer  and  wage-earner,  and  many  there  are 
who  insist  that  labor  should  not  be  subjected  to  such 
charge,  that  it  is  unjust  and  needless.  But  as  we  have 
endeavored  to  show  the  supplying  of  ca])ital  adds  to 
the  productiveness  of  labor.  The  saving  and  accunni- 
lation  of  capital  gives  to  producers  the  means  of  in- 
creasing the  size  of  the  stream  flowing  into  the  fund 
out  of  which  wages  and  profits  are  drawn.  And  so 
does  it  make  possible  the  drawing  of  larger  dividends 
as  profits  and  wages,  and  so  may  those  who  pay  these 
capital  charges  find  that  they  pay  less  for  the  use  of 
the  savings  of  others  than  those  savings  are  worth  to 
them.  Indeed,  if  they  did  not  think  the  uso  of  such 
pavings  worth  more  than  the  price  demanded  for  their 
use  they  would  not  borrow. 


842  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

But  why,  it  is  asked,  should  labor  be  subjected  to 
these  charges  at  all,  why  not  supply  capital  free  to  all? 
By  all  means  let  us  supply  it  free,  banish  interest  if  we 
can.  And  by  many  we  are  told  that  we  can.  But  in- 
crease the  supply  of  money,  it  is  said,  and  the  deed 
will  be  done.  But  this  belief  is  based  on  an  entire 
misconception  of  the  nature  of  capital.  We  cannot  do 
away  with  interest  by  increasing  the  volume  of  money, 
for  money  is  not  capital.  But,  it  is  said,  cannot  you 
reduce  interest  rates  by  increasing  the  supply  of 
money?  Well,  of  course,  we  may,  but  this  will  not  re- 
sult directly  in  reducing  future  capital  charges.  Why? 
Because  money  is  not  capital  and  the  increase  of  the 
volume  of  money  would  not  of  itself  increase  the  sup- 
ply of  capital.  Such  increase  would  merely  result  in 
making  prices  higher,  making  each  unit  of  money 
stand  for  a  lesser  amount  of  capital,  and  then  to  ac- 
quire a  given  amount  of  capital  we  would  have  to  bor- 
row a  greater  number  of  units.  For  each  unit  we 
would  be  charged  less  interest,  but  for  the  total  num- 
ber of  units  required  we  would  be  charged  as  much  as 
before.  Of  course,  such  rise  in  prices  would  lighten 
the  fixed  charges  on  old  debts;  of  course  such  rise  in 
prices  would  stimulate  production,  lead  to  increased 
production  of  wealth,  increased  savings,  increased  ac- 
cumulation of  capital,  and  so  finally  and  indirectly  re- 
sult in  making  capital  cheaper.  But  clearly  this  only 
would  be  added  proof  that  it  is  only  the  increase  of 
capital  and  the  decrease  in  the  severity  of  the  sacrifices 
called  for  in  its  saving  that  can  result  in  making  capi- 
tal cheaper.  The  mere  increase  of  money  cannot  of 
itself. 

THE   FUNCTION   OF  CAPITAL. 

And  now  to  return  to  the  laborer  and  his  hire.  We 
have  seen  that  that  hire  is  primarily  dependent  upon 
the  productiveness  of  labor  and  not  paid  out  of  capital. 


THE    LABORER   AND    HIS    HIRE.  343 

But  capital  has  a  function  to  perform  in  this  payment, 
and  that  is  to  advance  the  wages  paid,  advance  to  the 
workman  not  only  the  tools  and  materials  used  in  pro- 
duction, but  the  sustenance  he  needs  to  keep  himself 
during  the  period  of  production  and  the  interim 
elapsing  before  the  sale  of  the  product  out  of  which 
sale  capital  is  repaid  for  its  advance.  And  the  more 
diversified  industries  become,  the  greater  must  be 
these  advances.  Hence  such  diversification  is  depend- 
ent on  the  accumulation  of  capital  and  so  are  wages,  in 
so  far  as  the  productiveness  of  labor  may  be  hindered 
by  the  lack  of  capital,  dependent  on  the  savings  of  the 
community. 

The  shoemaker  at  his  bench  needs  but  little  capital, 
only  enough  to  enable  him  to  supply  himself  with  ne- 
cessary tools  and  materials,  and  sufficient  food  to  keep 
him  during  the  few  days  while  he  is  occupied  on  a 
pair  of  shoes  and  before  he  gets  pay  for  the  products 
of  his  labor.  But  such  little  capital  he  must  accumu- 
late or  command  before  he  can  set  up  in  business. 
Eelatively  to  his  output  the  capital  needed  is  small, 
several  times  a  year  may  he  turn  it  over.  But  let  us 
advance  a  step  and  look  into  the  great  shoe  factory 
where  labor  is  much  diversified  and  the  productive 
power  of  each  laborer  is  infinitely  greater  than  that 
of  the  individual  cobbler.  With  that  increased  pro- 
ductiveness of  labor  has  the  demand,  the  necessity  for 
capital  increased  in  even  greater  ratio.  There  must  be 
supplied  for  each  hand  much  more  capital  than  the  in- 
dividual shoemaker  needs.  Not  only  because  of  the 
intricate  machinery  used  and  the  use  of  which  makes 
labor  so  much  more  productive,  but  because  the  time 
elapsing  between  the  expenditure  of  labor  in  making 
a  shoe  and  the  receipt  of  payment  by  the  manufacturer 
is  much  longer.  And  during  all  such  period  must  the 
share  of  the  laborer  in  the  product  be  advanced  to  him 


344  THE    GREAT    ISSUER. 

that  he,  without  capital,  may  supply  himself  with  his 
wants. 

And  so  it  is  in  all  industries  whore  labor  is  greatly 
diversified.  The  greater  the  diversification  the  greater 
is  the  productiveness  of  labor,  but  also  greater  is  the 
demand  for  capital.  And  hence  it  is  that  diversifica- 
tion of  industries  can  only  proceed  with  the  accumu- 
lation of  capital,  so  it  is  that  with  the  accumulation  of 
capital  the  productiveness  of  labor  increases  and  such 
accumulation  we  cannot  afford  to  discourage,  llather, 
if  wc  have  an  eye  to  our  own  good,  will  we  encourage 
it,  but  let  us  ever  bear  in  mind  that  nothing  is  so  great 
a  stimulus  to  industry  and  the  productiveness  of  laboi- 
as  justice  in  the  division  of  the  fruits  thereof,  and  that 
the  greater  the  productiveness  of  labor  the  easier  is 
it  to  save,  for  saving  costs  less  sacrifice,  and  the  more 
rapid  the  accumulation  of  capital. 

PAYING   TRIBUTE  FOR  THE   RIGHT   TO   WORK. 

And  while  men  are  denied  equal  opportunities  tor 
labor,  employing  their  resources  and  developing  their 
abilities;  while  laborers  are  at  the  mercy  of  favored 
combines  holding  monopolies  of  the  tools  and  agencies 
of  production  and  distribution,  and  must  pay  those 
combines  for  the  right  to  work  by  surrendering  to 
them  all  the  fruits  of  their  toil  above  what  is  barely 
sufficient  to  enable  them  to  live  and  bring  up  a  brood 
of  children  in  the  drudgery  of  poverty,  shut  off  from 
opportunities  for  the  development  of  their  abilities 
that  are  the  rightful  inheritance  of  every  child,  there 
is  no  justice,  progress  must  be  warped,  industrial  de- 
velopment, the  groAvth  of  the  productiveness  of  labor, 
the  accumulation  of  capital  must  be  hindered.  Every 
man  has  the  right  to  work,  and  that  right  it  is  the  duty 
of  a  just  government,  w-atchful  over  the  rights  of  the 
weak  as  the  interests  of  the  strong,  to  secure  to  all, 


THE    LABORER    AND    HIS    HIRE.  345 

and  to  this  end  should  the  government  offer  opportuni- 
ties of  work  to  those  who  are  denied  the  right  to 
work,  to  tliose  who,  dependent  on  trusts  and  conihines, 
are  obliged  to  pay  a  price  for  the  right  to  work,  de- 
l)rived  of  the  fruits  of  labor  that  are  justly  theirs;  for 
the  right  to  work,  which  is  the  right  to  life,  is  a  right 
that  ought  to  be  free. 

To  put  a  man  in  a  position  where  he  must  beg  for 
work  is  to  beggar,  degrade,  enslave  him.  He  cannot 
be  free  unless  the  right  to  work  is  also  free,  and  that 
now  is  not  free,  for  many  of  the  means  of  production 
and  distribution  are  monopolized,  and  the  free  and 
equal  use  of  such  denied  to  labor.  So  we  have  to  de- 
stroy these  monopolies  ])y  taking  away  the  special 
privileges  they  enjoy  and  which  enable  them  to  exact 
tribute  from  the  laborer  for  the  right  lo  work,  or  the 
government  must  take  over  such  monopolies  and  oper- 
ate them  so  that  labor  may  receive  the  full  fruits  of 
its  toil. 

GIVE  us  HONEST  MONEY  AND  THE  RIGHT  TO  WORK. 

And  further  there  is  that  idleness  engendered  by 
fluctuations  in  the  value  of  the  money  standard  that 
by  depressing  prices  cut  out  the  profits  of  production, 
lead  to  stagnation  and  the  throwing  of  men  out  of 
work,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  government  to  guard 
against.  And  how  may  this  be  guarded  against,  how 
may  the  money  standard  be  freed  from  fluctuations 
and  the  opportunity  to  work  kept  open  to  all  men  and 
at  all  times  so  that  there  may  be  no  loss  from  enforced 
idleness,  no  suffering  and  distress  and  impoverishment 
bred  thereof?  Some  tell  us  to  make  labor  the  stand- 
ard of  value  by  ottering  work  to  all  men  at  a  fixed 
wage.  This  would  give  us  a  rigid  measure  of  values 
based  on  labor  as  a  unit.  Then  should  wages  for  any 
cause  be  generally  reduced  in  the  independent  fields 


346  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

of  production  men  would  take  up  with  llie  govern- 
ment's standing  offer,  Ije  set  to  work  in  the  construc- 
tion of  works  of  public  utility,  the  wages  paid  them 
would  go  to  swell  the  volume  of  currency,  this  would 
lift  prices,  instill  new  life  into  independent  industry, 
finally  result  in  increased  demand  for  lahor  and  a  gen- 
eral offering  of  higher  wages.  And  this  very  thing 
would  prevent  any  inflation  of  currency  by  drawing 
workers  back  to  the  service  of  independent  producers, 
and  so,  by  decreasing  the  hands  in  government  em- 
ploy, cause  a  decrease  in  the  rate  of  currency  increase 
the  moment  inflation  was  threatened. 

But  do  we  want  a  rigid  measure  of  values  based  on 
labor  as  a  unit?  For  our  part  we  do  not,  for  to  labor 
it  would  be  unjust.  With  the  progress  of  invention 
labor  becomes  more  productive,  more  valuable,  and 
should  command  higher  wages.  If  we  made  labor  the 
unit  of  value  wages  would  not  rise  but  remain  un- 
changed with  such  progress,  while  prices  would  fall. 
You  say  this  would  be  all  right,  for  labor  would  secure 
the  profit  and  benefit  of  such  increased  productive- 
ness by  being  able  to  buy  cheaper,  that  the  wage 
though  nominally  unchanged  would  buy  more.  This 
is  true,  but  labor  would  secure  its  profits  after  others 
had  taken  off  and  secured  for  their  own  profit  a  large 
part  of  the  increased  productiveness  of  labor,  an  in- 
creased productiveness  that  such  others,  fundholdero 
and  landlords,  drawers  of  interest  and  rent  had  no 
share  in  bringing  about.  For  with  such  cheapening 
such  drawers  of  interest  and  rents  could  command  a 
greater  share  of  the  products  of  labor,  thus  leaving 
labor  with  far  from  the  full  increase  in  its  own  produc- 
tiveness. And  this  would  be  unjust,  for  it  would  de- 
prive labor  of  the  full  fruits  of  its  toil,  oblige  it  to 
share  such  fruits  with  those  who  had  no  just  claim 
thereto.     Therefore  would  we  make  the  general  level 


THE    LABOKER    AND   HIS    HIRE.  317 

of  prices  the  basis  for  our  measure  of  values,  and  Ihen 
would  we  regulate  the  volume  of  currency  so  as  to  keep 
that  level  .stable;  therefore  would  we  ofter  work  to  all 
men  not  upon  any  fixed  rigid  scale  but  a  sliding  scale, 
a  scale  that  would  advance  with  the  productiveness  of 
labor,  be  so  regulated  as  to  keep  up  the  currency  to 
such  volume  as  would  be  needed  to  maintain  the  level 
of  prices.  This  would  of  course  mean  that  any  fall  in 
prices  consequent  on  any  progress  made  in  the  indus- 
trial arts  would  be  followed  by  a  rising  in  the  scale  of 
wages  until  as  a  result  the  volume  of  currency  would 
be  so  increased  as  to  restore  and  maintain  the  level  of 
prices.  Then  not  only  would  the  right  to  work  be 
secured  to  all  men,  but  the  right  of  all  men  to  enjoy 
the  full  fruits  of  their  toil  be  recognized;  then  would 
the  laborer  share  to  the  full  in  the  general  progress 
of  the  arts  and  the  increased  productiveness  of  labor; 
then  would  there  be  Justice;  then  men  w^ould  be  really 
free;  then  great  would  be  the  stimulus  to  enterjirise 
and  industry,  great  be  the  increase  in  w^ealth  produc- 
tion, unparalleled  the  accumulation  of  capital,  mar- 
velous the  rate  of  progress. 


OUR  CANADIAN  EELATIONS. 

[.Sej)teml)er  3d,  1898.] 

FROM  the  standpoint  of  the  protectionist  there  is 
no  reason  for  the  imposition  of  tariff  duties  on 
importations  from  Canada  into  the  United 
States,  no  good  reason  why  trade  between  New  York 
and  Ottawa  should  not  he  as  free  as  trade  between 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania.  It  would  be  mutually 
advantageous  if  it  were  so,  if  there  were  no  customs 
line  to  hinder  the  interchange  of  commodities  between 
the  two  countries.  Such  free  interchange  of  com- 
modities, the  utter  abolishment  of  customs  houses 
along  our  Canadian  border  we  would  gladly  work  for, 
but  a  treaty  of  reciprocity  falling  short  of  this  is  a 
very  different  matter.  Indeed,  a  reciprocity  treaty  is 
urged  on  very  different  ground,  urged  not  on  sound, 
economic  grounds,  but  on  false,  and  to  a  reciprocity 
treaty  of  such  a  nature  as  is  generally  contemplated 
we  would  lend  no  encouragement,  but  throw  cold 
water. 

The  abolishment  of  the  customs  houses  along  our 
northern  border  we  would  urge  on  the  ground  that  the 
free  interchange  of  commodities  would  be  mutually  ad- 
vantageous, that  both  peoples  would  gain  from  such 
interchange  and  gain  equally  as  buyers  and  as  sellers. 
But  reciprocity,  as  suggested,  rests  on  the  idea  that 
in  the  exchange  of  commodities  it  is  the  seller  alone 
that  profits,  that  consequently  the  interests  of  buyer 
and  seller  are  not  mutual,  that  from  increasing  our 
purchases  from  Canada  we  must  lose,  that  by  increas- 
ing our  sales  we  must  gain,  that,  per  se,  the  interests 
of  Canada  are  just    the    opposite    of    ours,  and    that 


OUK    CANADIAN    KELATIONS.  349 

therefore  a  reciprocity  treaty  must  be  the  result  of  a 
dicker  in  which  each  party  thereto  strives  to  and  be- 
lieves it  has  got  the  Ijest  of  the  other,  gained  more  by 
extending  the  markets  for  its  goods  than  it  has  lost  by 
opening  its  own  markets. 

And  clearly  a  reciprocity  arrangement  approached 
upon  this  mistaken  basis  cannot  be  mutually  satisfac- 
tory. If  it  works  as  expected,  evidently  one  peo])le 
must  lose  what  the  other  gains.  And  in.  such  trade 
there  is  obviously  no  net  gain,  no  profit  in  the  ex- 
change of  commodities  and  it  would  be  better  if  such 
excliange  did  not  take  place.  Therefore,  we  have  lit- 
tle patience  with  those  who  put  forth  so-called  reci- 
procity propositions  in  the  belief  that  by  the  accept- 
ance of  such  propositions  they  would  get  the  best  of 
their  neighbors,  but  that  can  only  find  acceptance  if 
those  neighbors  are  under  the  contrary  belief.  There 
is  only  one  true  way  for  a  country  to  get  rich  and  pros- 
]ier,  and  that  is  by  producing  wealth,  not  by  getting 
the  best  of  its  neighbors  in  trade. 

The  notion  that  trade  is  one  grand  scheme  of  cheat, 
that  it  has  its  support,  not  in  mutual  profit,  but  in 
])rofit  derived  by  one  party  to  the  trade  at  the  cost  of 
the  other,  and  that,  therefore,  there  is  no  net  gain  in 
trade,  is  so  absurd  that  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  it 
should  find  any  acceptance.  Yet  just  such  notion  is 
held  ])y  many  of  our  advocates  of  Canadian  reciprocity; 
it  is  with  such  absurd  idea  that  they  would  api)roach 
the  building  of  a  reciprocity  treaty.  Canadian  advo- 
cates of  reciprocity  approaching  the  subject  in  the 
same  spirit  the  result  must  be  mutual  distrust  and 
suspicion.     It  is  petty  treatment  of  groat  interests. 

From  the  exchange  of  commodities  botli  parties  to 
the  trade  should  gain.  It  is  iiuleed  on  mutual  profit 
that  trade  and  commerce  rests.  If  two  families,  living 
quite  independently  of  each  other,  each  producing  by 


360  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

its  own  unaided  exertions  all  that  it  consumes,  dis- 
cover that  by  uniting  their  exertions,  dividing  their 
labor  and  the  fruits  thereof  they  can  produce  more 
wealth  and  live  in  greater  comfort,  it  is  evidently  to 
their  advantage  to  do  so. 

As  soon  as  labor  is  divided  to  the  end  of  increasing 
its  productiveness,  each  family,  each  unit  in  society, 
ceases  to  be  self-dependent.  Labor  being  subdivided 
and  each  man  devoting  himself  to  the  production  of 
one  particular  product  or  general  line  of  material,  it 
follows  that  he  will  produce  more  of  such  goods  than 
he  can  himself  consume.  The  surplus  he  must  ex- 
change for  the  surplus  products  of  others,  and  thus 
supply  himself  with  his  needs.  To  make  this  ex- 
change will  of  course  cost  some  effort,  some  labor. 
The  labor  thus  spent  of  necessity  diminishes  the  time 
that  can  be  given  to  the  production  of  wealth.  But  if 
the  increased  productiveness  of  labor  coming  with  the 
division  of  labor  is  greater  than  the  loss  of  productive- 
ness consequent  on  the  expenditure  of  labor  in  effect- 
ing the  exchange,  it  is  obvious  that  such  division  of 
labor  and  such  exchange  as  makes  possible  such  divi- 
sion, is  a  net  gain  to  society.  In  other  words,  where 
each  man  devoting  himself  to  one  kind  of  industry  and 
producing  a  surplus  can  exchange  that  surplus  for  a 
greater  quantity  of  other  commodities  which  he  may 
desire  than  he  could  obtain  if  instead  of  devoting  him- 
self to  one  kind  of  work  and  producing  a  surplus  be- 
yond his  own  needs  he  undertook  to  directly  fill  all  his 
own  wants,  such  exchange  is  advantageous  to  him. 
And  in  such  exchange  he  must  appear  both  as  seller 
and  buyer,  he  must  sell  the  fruits  of  his  own  labor  for 
the  fruits  of  others'  labor.  He  sells  and  buys  merely 
because  by  devoting  himself  to  one  kind  of  work  and 
producing  a  surplus  which  he  can  exchange  for  the  sur- 
plus fruits  of  other  labor  he  can  live  better  than  if 


OUR   CANADIAN   RELATIONS.  351 

he  undertook  to  raise  or  make  for  himself  everything 
he  used.  So  the  profit  in  the  exchange  of  commodities, 
a  profit  that  is  mutual.  By  such  dividing  up  of  em- 
ployments and  exchange  of  surplus  products,  labor  is 
enabled  to  produce  more  wealth  and  produce  more 
than  is  wasted  by  the  time  and  labor  lost  in  etfecting 
exchanges.  Therefore  in  such  exchange  there  is  a 
gain  to  mankind. 

Such  exchange  of  commodities  is  for  convenience 
effected  through  means  of  a  token,  a  counter,  a  unit 
of  account  that  in  the  United  States  is  known  as  the 
dollar.  But  though  we  sell  commodities  in  terms  of 
dollars  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  do  not  really 
give  commodities  for  the  printed  slips  of  paper  or 
stamped  disks  of  silver  or  gold  that  go  by  the  name 
of  dollars.  Those  slips  of  paper  and  metal  disks  are 
really  drafts  on  all  the  storekeepers  and  shopkeepers 
in  the  United  States,  drafts  that  in  effect  state  that 
the  bearer  has  rendered  a  dollar's  worth  of  services  to 
society,  produced  and  parted  with  a  dollar's  worth  of 
goods,  the  surplus  fruits  of  his  labor,  and  that  he  is 
entitled  to  a  dollar's  worth  of  goods,  the  surplus  fruits 
of  others'  labor  from  society  in  return.  And  it  is  be- 
cause these  dollars  are  drafts  on  the  storekeepers  and 
shopkeepers  that  we  accept  such  dollars  in  payment 
for  our  commodities.  We  accept  them  merely  because 
they  afford  a  convenient  medium  by  which  one  may 
exchange  the  surplus  products  of  his  own  labor  for 
the  surplus  products  of  others,  a  medium  which  l)eing 
itself  subdivisi])le  ena])les  us  to  buy  commodities  in  the 
quantities  wanted  and  at  the  time  when  wanted. 
Those  dollars  in  one's  hands  are  certificates  that  one 
has  rendered  a  service  to  society  for  which  society  is 
owing  a  service  in  return,  and  certificates  that  society 
will  honor  at  any  time  and  any  place.  Such  is  the  na- 
ture of  money. 


352  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

So  when  we  sell  a  commodity  for  money  we  merely 
sell  it  for  a  draft  that  will  be  honored  by  all  store- 
keepers and  shopkeepers  of  our  land  and  entitling  us 
to  other  coniniodities.  And  as  our  services  to  society 
are  greater,  as  we  produce  more  wealth  when  subdivid- 
ing our  labor  and  devoting  ourselves  to  particular 
tasks  it  follows  that  those  drafts,  which  represent  the 
value  of  our  services  rendered  to  society,  are  of  great- 
er value  than  our  labor  would  be  if  not  thus  sub- 
divided and  call  for  a  greater  quantity  of  commodi- 
ties than  we  could  hope  to  produce  by  individual 
effort.  Therefore  our  gain,  and  to  divide  the  gain  de- 
rived from  selling  and  buying  is  impossible,  for  selling 
and  buying  are  but  parts  of  the  same  profitable  trans- 
action, the  exchange  of  the  surplus  fruits  of  our  labor 
for  a  greater  quantity  of  wealth  than  we  could  get  by 
devoting  that  part  of  our  labor  now  given  to  producing 
a  surplus  to  the  production  of  such  articles  as  we  buy. 

It  is  this  mutual  profit  that  is  the  foundation  of 
trade  and  commerce.  But  it  is  unfortunately  true 
that  much  trade  is  conducted  on  the  get-rich-quick 
principle  of  striving  to  despoil  those  with  whom  one 
trades,  the  principle  of  monopoly,  which  is  to  take  to 
monopoly  all  the  profits  of  exchange,  despoil  the  seller 
and  purchaser  of  the  mutual  profit  that  should  come 
from  the  diversification  of  employments,  the  conse- 
quent production  of  surplus  fruits  of  labor  and  the  ex- 
change of  such  surplus.  Monopoly  accomplishes  this 
by  putting  such  a  tax  upon  exchange  of  commodities 
as  to  more  than  absorb  the  increased  production  of 
wealth  growing  out  of  the  division  of  labor  and  its 
consequent  increased  productiveness.  Thus  monop- 
oly, where  it  is  industrial,  as  the  Standard  Oil  or  Sugar 
Trust,  squeezes  from,  the  seller  by  pressing  down  the 
prices  paid  for  raw  material,  and  from  the  purchaser 
by  the  charge  of  exorbitant  prices.     And  when  the 


OUR   CANADIAN   RELATIONS.  353 

monopoly  is  that  of  transportation  the  squeezing  is  ac- 
complished by  the  charge  of  unreasonable  freight 
rates;  when  working  through  money  by  squeezing 
down  prices  and  tlius  turning  the  profits  of  industry 
into  the  pockets  of  the  creditor  classes. 

The  inevitable  result  of  thus  diminishing  if  not  de- 
stroying the  mutual  profitableness  of  the  diversifica- 
tion of  industries  and  the  exchange  of  commodities 
must  be  to  discourage  such  diversification,  such  ex- 
change, lead  to  industrial  stagnation,  to  trade  paraly- 
sis, for  it  does  in  effect  undermine  the  very  founda- 
tions of  trade  and  commerce. 

It  is  the  duty  of  nations  to  protect  themselves 
against  such  monopolies,  whether  industrial  or  trans- 
portation or  financial,  whether  foreign  or  domestic;  to 
encourage  that  diversification  of  employments,  that 
free  exchange  of  products  that  is  the  sure  path  to 
wealth  and  greatness.  And  clearly  whatever  product 
any  people  can  produce  for  themselves  at  a  smaller 
expenditure  of  labor  than  such  product  may  be  pro- 
duced and  imported  from  abroad  it  is  to  their  advan- 
tage to  produce  that  product,  their  loss  to  import,  and 
under  natural  conditions  such  product  would  not  long 
continue  to  be  imported.  But  conditions  are  not  al- 
ways free  and  equal,  and  so  it  happens  that  what  is 
known  as  free  trade  is  often  not  free  trade  at  all,  but 
trade  warped  and  turned  into  profitless  channels  by  ar- 
tificial hindrances.  And  to  remove  such  hindrances 
or  neutralize  them,  protective  tariffs,  themselves  too 
often  abused,  have  been  raised. 

Such  hindrances  are  raised  by  centralized  capital, 
and  naturally  such  accumulations  of  capital  are  larg- 
est in  the  hands  of  those  industries  long  established 
in  the  older  countries  of  the  world.  So  against  the 
old  countries  of  Kurope  the  newly-settled  countries 
have  generally  raised  protective  tariff's,  raised  thein  to 


864  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

combat  monopoly,  raised  them  to  free  themselves  from 
the  necessity  of  selling  in  a  distant  market  and  buy- 
ing in  a  distant  market. 

Thus  did  the  United  States  raise  a  protective  tariff. 
The  economists  of  the  protectionist  school  taught  that 
whatever  product  our  people  could  produce  at  a  less 
expenditure  of  labor  than  would  be  spent  in  producing 
il  abroad  and  bringing  it  to  us,  it  would  be  to  our  ad- 
vantage to  produce  at  home,  and  that  producers  of 
such  products  should  be  protected  against  any  unnat- 
ural and  unhealthy  foreign  competition.  In  short,  they 
held  that  the  artificial  advantages  possessed  by  foreign 
countries  should  not  be  permitted  to  drive  trade  out 
of  its  natural  and  therefore  most  profitable  channels. 
So  they  held  that  the  fact  that  labor  had  been  ground 
down  in  Europe,  should  not  be  permitted  to  give  to 
European  producers  any  advantage  in  competition 
with  our  producers;  so  they  held  that  a  war  of  under- 
selling pressed  by  the  European  manufacturers  of 
large  accumulations  of  capital,  a  war  in  which  our 
producers  of  smaller  capital  would,  unaided,  go  under 
— a  war  forced  with  the  purpose  of  keeping  a  monopoly 
of  our  markets  and  then  reimbursing  for  the  costs  of 
the  war  of  underselling  by  the  charge  of  extortionate 
prices,  should  not  be  tolerated,  and  to  prevent  such 
underselling,  to  prevent  such  artificial  competition,  a 
competition  with  the  result  of  momentarily  putting 
prices  down  to  the  American  consumer,  but  putting 
them  up  in  the  end, and  to  equalize  differences  in  wages, 
protective  tariff  duties  were  imposed.  Thus  by  the  ar- 
tificial was  the  artificial  destroyed,  and  industry  per- 
mitted to  develop  in  natural  channels.  But  clearly 
we  need  no  such  protection  against  Canada. 

What  products  we  cannot  produce  in  the  United 
States  with  as  small  an  expenditure  of  labor  as  they 
can  be  produced  elsewhere    and    transported    to    our 


OUR   CANADIAN    RELATIONS.  355 

shores  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  very  obviously  to  our 
advantage  to  import.  This  have  economists  of  the 
protectionist  school  taught,  and  so  opposed  all  tariff 
duties  on  such  commodities  as  our  country  is  not 
qualified  to  produce.  So  all  this  teaches  that  trade  be- 
tween countries  of  different  latitude  should  be  free, 
for  it  is  in  such  direction  that  trade  should  naturally 
develop,  between  countries  of  different  climate  and 
consequently  of  different  natural  resources.  There- 
fore it  is  that  from  the  protectionist  standpoint  trade 
between  Canada  and  the  United  States  should  be  free. 
It  is  only  from  the  standpoint  of  the  protectionist  who 
is  protectionist  from  selfishness  and  not  from  princi- 
ple, who  looks  upon  the  tariff"  not  as  a  means  to  equal- 
ize artificial  barriers,  stimulate  the  diversification  of 
employments  and  the  interchange  of  commodities,  but 
as  a  means  to  unduly  raise  prices  and  despoil  the 
American  consumer  that  such  trade  should  not  be  free. 
And  the  protectionists  of  this  stamp  are  not  deserv- 
ing of  attention. 

J5ut,  unfortunately,  such  protectionists  are  listened 
to,  are  heeded,  are  represented  and  well  represented 
on  the  Joint  Commission  having  under  consideration 
the  relations  of  the  United  States  and  Canada.  There- 
fore if  the  question  of  general  trade  relations  is  taken 
up  we  may  be  assured  that  it  will  be  approached  in  a 
petty  spirit,  in  the  spirit  of  bargain  and  sale  and  in 
the  belief  that  we  can  profit  by  selling  to  Canada,  but 
cannot  profit  by  buying  from  Canada.  And  it  is  too 
much  to  hope  that  any  mutually  satisfactory  arrange- 
ment can  be  arrived  at  when  approached  from  such 
false  ground.  We  repeat,  the  interchange  of  goods 
should  be  mutually  profitable  or  there  should  be  no  in- 
terchange. We  say  more,  there  can  be  no  permanent 
interchange  of  goods  that  is  not  so  profitable.  Any 
trade  that  is  not  so,  that  is  one-sided,  that  impovf^r- 


356  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

ishes  one  party  to  it  mu^t  sooner  or  later  dry  up.  But 
between  Canada  and  the  United  States  there  .should, 
in  the  natural  order  of  things,  be  a  mutually  advan- 
tageous exchange  of  products,  and  it  is  a  loss  to  both 
peoples  to  put  tarifT  hindrances  in  the  way  of  such 
trade.  P'rom  such  hindrances  nothing  is  gained,  for 
they  are  not  required  to  neutralize  artificial  advan- 
tages that  one  people  have  over  the  other.  Such  ad- 
vantages do  not  exist.  Therefore  the  abolishment  of 
the  customs  line  between  the  two  would  be  a  mutual 
advantage. 

But  no  reciprocity  treaty  framed  on  the  false  idea 
that  we  have  much  to  gain  by  selling  to  Canada  but 
nothing  to  gain  by  buying  from  her,  can  be  mutually 
satisfactory  and  advantageous.  The  truth  is  we  have 
much  to  gam  by  buying  more  extensively  from,  and 
selling  more  extensively  to,  Canada  and  Xewfound- 
land.  And  so  has  Canada  much  to  gain  by  extending 
such  trade  with  us.  A  tariff  on  imports  of  coal  into 
Canada,  such  as  places  a  hindrance  on  Montreal  and 
Ottawa  getting  their  coal  from  the  nearest  mines 
which  are  in  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania,  and  causing  them 
to  look  to  the  ISTova  Scotian  mines,  twice  the  distance 
off,  is  nothing  less  than  a  tax  upon  industry,  upon  the 
accumulation  of  wealth  in  the  province  of  Ottawa, 
for  it  is  a  turning  of  trade  into  unnatural  and  waste- 
ful channels.  And  so  is  the  tariff  on  the  importation 
of  coal  into  the  United  States  that  causes  the  people 
of  Maine  to  look  to  the  coal  fields  of  Pennsylvania  and 
Virginia  rather  than  to  the  much  nearer  fields  of  Nova 
Scotia  for  their  coal,  a  tax  on  the  people  of  Maine,  a 
tax  upon  society,  for  it  leads  to  wasted  labor. 

So  from  free  trade  in  coal  between  Canada  and  the 
United  States  the  people  of  both  countries  would  mu- 
tually gain  and  both  as  producers  and  as  consumers. 
Coal  of  both  countries,  finding  nearer  markets    could 


OUE   CANADIAN    RELATIONS.  3o7 

be  sold  at  lower  prices,  for  the  waste  on  transportation 
would  be  less  and  still  bring  a  better  price  to  the  pro- 
ducers. And  cheaper  coal  to  the  consumer  would  no 
doubt  bring  increased  consumption  and  so  increased 
demand. 

Again  is  the  tariff  on  importations  of  iron  into 
Canada  nothing  less  than  a  hindrance  to  the  accumu- 
lation of  wealth  in  Canada,  for  iron  cannot  be  made  in 
Canada  at  anything  like  the  labor  cost  that  it  can  in 
rennsylvania,  and  so  to  eneourge  Canadians  to  make 
their  own  iron  is  simply  to  encourage  the  development 
of  industry  in  unnatural  and  hence  wasteful  (hannels. 
80  on  the  other  hand  are  the  duties  we  place  on  im- 
ports of  luml)er  nothing  less  than  a  tax  on  our  own 
people,  and  simply  serve  to  enable  the  owners  of  the 
much  restricted  timber  tracts  of  the  United  States  to 
profit  at  the  expense  of  our  people  at  large,  and  so  has- 
ten the  deforesting  of  our  lands,  which  is  something 
not  at  all  to  be  desired.  Besides,  such  duties  cause 
the  transportation  of  timber  unnecessary  distances. 
Where  markets  for  lumber  in  the  United  States  are 
nearer  the  Canadian  timber  tracts  than  our  own  it 
would  be  to  our  advantage  to  buy  in  Canada.  The 
tariff  that  hinders  such  trade  leads  to  a  drain  on  more 
distant  sources  of  timber  supply  in  the  United  States, 
and  hence  waste  of  labor  in  transportation.  What  is 
Dioip,  it  leads  to  the  cutting  of  trees  not  yet  ripe  for 
tli'^  woodsman's  axe  and  the  use  of  inferior  timber,  and 
is  therefore  doubly  injurious  and  wasteful. 

To  the  abolishment  of  the  customs  barriers  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Canada  there  would,  no 
doubt,  ])e  great  outcry  on  the  ground  that  it  would 
subject  our  farmers  to  the  comjietition  of  Canadian 
grain.  But  the  truth  is  they  now  meet  this  competi- 
tion, they  sell  their  grain  in  competition  with  Can- 
adian grain,  to  say  nothing  of  the  grain  of  all  sur- 


368  TIIK    (iUKAT    ISSUES. 

plus  grain-producing  countries  of  the  world.  In  short, 
we  produce  a  surplus  of  grain,  Canada  produces  a  sur- 
plus of  grain,  and  sucli  surplus  is  marketed  in  Great 
Britain,  and  there,  under  free  competition,  the  price 
is  made.  And  the  price  on  the  American  and  Canadian 
farm  is  the  Liverpool  price  less  the  costs  of  transport- 
ing the  grain  to  Liverpool.  Consequently,  the  price 
of  grain  on  both  sides  of  the  border,  being  fi.xed  in  the 
same  market,  is  approximately  the  same.  Therefore, 
the  removal  of  the  tariff  duties  on  grain  would  not 
lead  to  increased  competition. 

We  repeat  there  is  no  good  reason  why  trade  be- 
tween Canada  and  the  United  States  should  not  be  as 
free  as  trade  between  the  states  of  the  American 
Union.  The  way  to  solve  the  question  of  our  trade 
relations  with  Canada  is  the  establishment  of  a  cus- 
toms union,  the  abolishment  of  customs  houses  be- 
tween the  two  countries.  It  would  be  a  solution  mu- 
tually satisfactory,  mutually  advantageous,  for  by  na- 
ture and  by  heritage  the  two  peoples  are  economically 
one. 

But  such  solution  of  the  question  is  not  even 
thought  of  at  this  time.  It  is  for  the  time  being  quite 
out  of  the  question.  Yet  there  is  no  other  way  in 
which  it  can  be  satisfactorily,  and,  therefore,  perman- 
ently solved.  Until  it  is  so  settled  it  will  never  be 
settled.  What  the  Canadian  Commissioners  will  pro- 
pose with  a  view  to  extending  trade  w'ith  the  United 
States  and  Avhat  our  commissioners  wnll  feel  like  ac- 
cepting, if  they  feel  like  accepting  anything,  is  a  ques- 
tion. But  under  the  provisions  of  the  Dingley  tariff 
our  commissioners  might  make  very  considerable  and 
general  concessions  in  tariff  rates,  subject,  of  course, 
to  the  approval  of  the  United  States  Senate,  before 
which  any  treaty  they  may  draw  up  must  go.  Thus 
the  Dingley  tariff  provides  that  whenever  the  Presi- 


OUH  CANADIAN   RELATIONS.  359 

dent,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  the  Senate  and  with 
a  view  to  securing  reciprocal  trade  with  foreign  coun- 
tries, may  deem  it  to  be  to  tlie  interest  of  the  United 
States,  may  enter  into  a  treaty  providing  for  the  re- 
duction of  duties  specified  in  the  Dingley  act  and  for 
a  period  of  not  more  than  five  years,  to  the  extent  of 
not  more  than  20  per  cent,  thereof,  and  also  for  the 
placing  on  the  free  list  of  such  commodities  as  were  on 
the  free  list  under  the  previous  tariff.  The  same  sec- 
tion of  the  Dingley  act  also  authorizes  and  for  a  sim- 
ilar purpose  the  transfer  to  the  free  list  of  any  articles 
that  are  not  the  natural  products  of  the  United  States. 
But  this  latter  provision  would  hardly  be  applicable  to 
our  trade  with  Canada.  Under  the  provisions  that 
are  applicable,  however,  timber  might  be  restored  to 
the  free  list  as  it  was  under  the  Wilson  act. 

The  trade  of  the  United  States  with  Canada  has  un- 
dergone vast  changes  in  the  last  ten  years.  In  1888 
our  imports  from  Canada  exceeded  our  exports  to 
Canada  by  about  six  million  dollars,  in  the  fiscal  year 
1898  our  exports  to  Canada  exceeded  our  imports 
from  Canada  by  fifty-one  millions,  our  exports  more 
than  doubling  in  ten  years  from  $37,245,119  worth  to 
$82,854,947,  and  our  imports  falling  off  by  more  than 
one-fourth  in  value,  or  from  $43,084,123  to  $31,G42,- 
312.  During  the  same  period  Canadian  trade  with 
Great  Britain  fluctuated  in  just  the  opposite  direction, 
exports  to  Great  Britain  al)out  dou})ling  and  imports 
from  Britain  falling  off  by  twenty  per  cent.  Statis- 
tics for  the  Canadian  British  trade  for  a  later  period 
than  the  calendar  year  1890  are  not  at  hand,  but  a 
comparison  of  the  returns  for  that  year  witli  1888  will 
show  the  general  trend  of  trade,  show  an  increase  in 
exports  from  $45,000,000  in  1888  to  $80,000,000  in 
1896,  a  decline  in  imports  from  $43,000,000  to  $33,- 
000,000. 


360  THE    GKliAT    ISSUES. 

Seizing  these  facts.  Sir  Wilfred  Laurier,  when  the 
elections  of  a  couple  of  years  ago  gave  his  party  con- 
trol of  the  Canadian  Parliament,  and  made  him  pre- 
mier, resolved  to  trade  upon  them,  and  he  forthwith 
offered  to  discriminate  against  importations  of  Ameri- 
can goods  and  in  favor  of  British  goods,  and  thus  make 
an  extended  market  for  British  goods  in  Canada,  if 
the  British  Government  would  discriminate  against 
American  grain  in  the  United  Kingdom,  and  thus 
make  an  extended  market  for  Canadian  produce. 
Thus,  at  our  expense  he  proposed  to  increase  the  mar- 
ket for  British  goods  in  Canada  and  for  Canadian 
goods  in  Britain.  And  to  show  his  earnestness  he 
piloted  a  new  tariff  measure  through  the  Canadian 
Parliament,  which  is  now  in  effect,  and  under  which 
British  goods  find  an  entrance  into  Canada  upon  pay- 
ment of  duties  25  per  cent,  lower  than  the  rates  on  im- 
portations from  the  United  States.  The  same  reduc- 
tion is  extended  to  imports  of  goods  from  all  parts  of 
the  British  empire. 

Thus  just  before  leaving  for  England  a  year  ago 
to  take  part  in  the  Victorian  jubilee.  Sir  Wilfred  made 
this  forward  step  towards  an  Imperial  Customs  Union, 
such  as  would  unite  the  British  empire  with  bands  of 
trade.  The  British  Government  responded  by  going 
so  far  as  to  abrogate  the  trade  treaties  with  Germany 
and  Belgium  under  which  Britain  was  bound  to  permit 
the  importation  of  goods  from  those  countries  upon 
an  exact  equality  with  goods  from  other  foreign  coun- 
tries or  her  colonies.  Those  treaties  of  course  in- 
hibited, while  they  stood,  the  imposition  of  discrimi- 
nating duties  by  Great  Britain  in  favor  of  Canadian 
and  other  colonial  produce.  But  further  than  the 
abrogation  of  these  tw^o  treaties  the  British  Govern- 
ment has  not  gone,  and  so  Canada  has  not  been  given 
favors  in  Great  Britain  in  return  for  favors  she  has 
granted. 


OUR   CANADIAN   RELATIONS.  3l3l 

Foreseeing  this,  Sir  Wilfred,  Frenchman  and  Cath- 
olic as  he  is,  yet  ruler  of  a  British  and  Protestant 
colony,  had  it  written  into  his  tariff  that  the  25  per 
cent,  reduction  on  duties  allowed  on  imports  from 
Britain  would  be  extended  to  any  country  offering  a 
similar  reduction  of  tariff  rates  on  importations  of 
Dominion  produce.  Thus  was  written  into  this  Can- 
adian tariff'  a  bait  and  a  threat  for  us,  a  threat  that  our 
goods  would  be  discriminated  against  in  favor  of  Brit- 
ish if  we  did  not  offer  tariff  favors  to  Canada,  a  bait 
that  our  goods  would  find  entrance  into  Canada  on  an 
equality  with  British  if  we  did  grant  reduction  in  our 
tariff  rates  in  favor  of  Canadian  produce.  But  such 
threat,  though  it  has  been  acted  up  to,  and  such  bait 
have  so  far  failed  to  effect  us  and  in  spite  of  the  dis- 
crimination against  our  products  and  in  favor  of  Brit- 
ish our  sales  of  products  to  Canada  have  gone  on  in- 
creasing. So  it  appears  that  the  discrimination  is  not 
going  to  change  the  course  of  Canadian  trade,  though 
it  is  yet  too  early  to  predict  the  ultimate  result. 

Such  is  the  situation  as  it  stands  to-day,  such  is  the 
question  of  discrimination  and  tariff  favors  as  it  will 
come  before  the  Joint  Commission,  but  that  the  com- 
mission will  solve  it,  the  Canadian  commissioners  of- 
fering the  reductions  authorized  under  the  Canadian 
tariff,  and  our  commissioners  the  reductions  in  tariff 
rates  provided  for  in  the  reciprocit}'  clauses  of  the 
Dingley  tariff,  is  extremely  improbable.  Indeed,  even 
if  such  agreement  was  come  to  it  would  not  be  any  per- 
manent solution  of  the  question  at  all,  for  no  question 
can  be  settled  until  it  is  settled  right,  and  the  only 
way  to  settle  this  question  is  to  abolish  the  customs 
houses  between  Canada  and  the  United  States. 


OUR  SOUTH  AMERICAN  TRADE. 

[December  Slst,  1898.] 

OF  ALL  our  foreign  trade  that  which  it  is  most 
worth  our  while  to  cultivate  is  the  trade  with 
the  countries  lying  to  the  south  of  us.  In  the 
very  nature  of  things  this  must  be  so,  for  they  are  sit- 
uate in  a  different  clime  and  their  products  are  of  a 
different  kind  than  ours.  Indeed,  much  that  they 
produce  we  Just  can't;  and  consequently  such  produce 
we  have  got  to  buy  or  go  without.  And,  as  we  have  to 
buy,  it  stands  to  reason  that  it  is  to  our  advantage  to 
buy  from  the  nearest  markets,  buy  such  produce  from 
the  West  Indies  rather  than  the  p]ast,  from  the  Repub- 
lics to  the  south  of  us  rather  than  from  the  peoples  of 
the  Orient,  for  surely  it  cannot  be  to  our  advantage  to 
bring  produce  from  six  to  ten  thousand  miles  when 
like  produce  can  be  gotten  from  lands  only  a  few  hun- 
dreds to  perhaps  three  thousands  of  miles  distant  from 
our  shores. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  LAISSEZ   FAIRE — OR  APRES  MOI   LE 
DELUGE. 

It  may  here  be  objected  that  inasmuch  as  we  do  to 
some  extent  buy  in  the  more  distant  markets  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  nearer,  it  must  be  to  our  advantage  to  do 
so.  Else,  it  is  said,  we  would  not  buy,  for  the  law  of 
self-interest  impels  men  to  buy  in  the  cheapest  mar- 
kets. So,  it  is  argued,  leave  men  alone,  rely  implicit- 
ly on  the  law  of  self-interest  to  give  trade  its  direc- 
tion and  development  and  all  will  work  out  for  the 
best.     This  is  the  old  comfortable  doctrine  of  laissez 


OUE    SOUTH    AMERICAX    TRADE.  3GJ 

faire;  that  is  comfortable  doctrine  for  those  who  have, 
but  H)  11 II comforting  for  those  who  have  not  that  the 
political  economy  reared  up  around  tliis  doctrine  by 
the  British  economists  of  the  middle  century  became 
fitly  dubbed  "the  dismal  science."  But  the  law  of 
self-interest  is  oftentimes  none  other  than  the  law  of 
selfishness,  and  reared  upon  the  sentiment  that  found 
expression  amidst  the  revelries  of  the  Court  of  Louis 
XV.  in  the  trite  saying  of  "  after  me  the  deluge,"  that 
is  to  say,  "  so  long  as  we  may  have  our  pleasures  we 
care  not  what  comes  to  France,  care  not  what  the  fu- 
ture may  have  in  store."  And  surely  no  good  comes 
to  a  nation  from  building  upon  such  law  of  selfishnchs, 
or  from  giving  men  full  license  to  build  upon  it. 

In  short,  an  easy-going  permission  for  men  to  fol- 
low the  law  of  self-interest  will  not  always  bring  things 
out  for  the  best,  will  not  always  lead  to  the  develop- 
ment of  trade  in  the  most  advantageous  directions. 
And  why?  Simply  because  men  impelled  by  the  su- 
jirome  spirit  of  sellishuess,  will  be  prone  to  grasp  at 
an  immediate  profit  even  though  such  grasping,  such 
taking,  must  cause  a  drying  up  of  source  and  a  cutting 
otf  of  profits  for  future  years.  Indeed,  men  will  be 
sure  to  embark  on  that  trade  that  holds  out  the  pros- 
pect of  greatest  immediate  profit.  They  will  so  em-. 
l)ark  even  though  such  new  trade  will  paralyze  an  old 
of  less  but  sustained  profits,  even  though  the  greater 
profits  of  the  new  trade  will  be  squeezed  out  in  a  few 
years  and  thus  leave  them  with  a  dry  spring.  In  fact, 
men  will  be  constrained  so  to  embark,  competition  will 
force  them,  even  though  they  see  that  the  grasping  f'>r 
larger  immediate  profits  will  inevitably  lead  to  a  dry- 
ing up  of  all  the  wells  of  profit.  They  will  be  so  con- 
strained for  a  very  few  acting  on  the  principle  of  after 
me  the  deluge,  or  so  shortsighted  as  not  to  see  that 
they  are  acting  on  such  principle  and  killing  the  goose 


364  THE   GREAT  ISSUES. 

of  the  golden  egg,  will  leave  the  many  with  no  alterna- 
tive but  to  join  in  the  slaughtering  process,  and  get 
what  profit  they  can  ere  the  carcase  is  picked  dry. 
And  surely  it  does  no  country  good  to  encourage  its 
citizens  to  act  on  this  principle,  to  build  trade  upon 
this  principle,  to  reach  out  for  a  foreign  trade  at  the 
expense  of  a  home  trade,  to  reach  out  for  distant  for- 
eign markets  at  the  cost  of  nearer  and  hence  more 
natural  markets. 

Yet  we  are  on  a  fair  way  to  doing  just  this.  Indeed 
the  government  is  urged  to  do  just  this  and  by  none 
more  strongly  than  some  Republican  manufacturers 
who  once  styled  themselves  protectionists,  who  once 
thought  or  said  they  did  that  a  cheap  coat  makes  a 
cheap  man,  who  thought  home  markets  as  the  nearest 
markets  the  best  markets,  but  who  now  think  more  of 
extending  the  foreign  market  than  the  home  market, 
and  in  their  anxiety  to  extend  that  market  declare 
cheapness,  a  cheap  man  and  a  cheap  coat  to  be  a  very 
good  thing.  And  indeed  this  policy  is  being  pursued 
with  a  vengeance.  We  have  had  a  general  cheapening 
of  men  and  things,  with  this  cheapening  has  come  a 
great  extension  in  our  export  trade  of  manufactured 
articles,  a  great  extension  of  foreign  markets,  but  a 
check  to  the  natural  expansion  of  our  home  markets 
so  that  our  manufacturers  have  lost  many  fold  more 
than  they  have  gained. 

CHEAPEST    MARKETS    NOT    ALWAYS    BEST    MARKETS. 

Yet  the  demand  that  this  policy  of  extending  for- 
eign markets,  without  thought  of  home,  be  pushed 
with  greater  vigor  is  made  with  much  vehemence. 
What  is  more,  the  demand  is  most  urgent  that  this 
extension  be  pushed  with  countries  more  distant  from 
us,  countries  in  the  Orient.  No  one  seems  to  enter- 
tain any  doubt  of  the  advisability  of  extending  our 


OUR    SOUTH    AMERICAN    TRADE.  365 

trade  with  the  tropical  countries  of  the  Orient  at  the 
expense  of  trade  with  the  countries  to  the  south  of  us, 
of  our  increasing  our  purchases  from  such  distant  mar- 
kets in  preference  to  markets  nearer  home.  Of  course 
it  is  undeniable  that  the  cost  of  bringing  produce  from 
six  to  ten  thousand  miles  to  our  markets  must  be 
greater  than  the  cost  of  bringing  produce  from  dis- 
tances of  a  few  hundred  up  to  three  or  four  thousand  ' 
miles,  but  still  it  is  said  it  is  to  our  advantage  to  in 
some  cases  bring  the  produce  we  use  the  greater  dis- 
tances. If  it  was  not  to  our  advantage,  so  it  is  as- 
serted with  confidence,  we  would  not  do  so.  When  we 
buy  from  the  more  distant  places,  it  is  said,  one  may 
be  sure  that  it  is  to  our  advantage  to  do  so.  If  it  was 
not  to  the  advantage  of  the  importing  merchants  they 
would  not  so  buy,  and  what  is  their  advantage  must  be 
tlieir  country's  advantage. 

So  it  is  argued,  l)ut  the  importing  merchant  buys 
where  he  can  Ijuy  cheapest,  and  it  is  not  always  to  the 
advantage  of  a  country  to  buy  in  the  cheapest  markets. 
This  may  shock  some  of  the  Idissez  faire,  leave  thing.s 
alone,  no  government  interference  with  trade  and  then 
what  is  is  best  school — shock  them  as  heterodox,  but 
buying  in  the  cheapest  markets  when  those  markets 
are  cheapest  because  what  therein  is  offered  is  cheap- 
est because  made  by  cheapest  labor  amounts  to  pau- 
perizing oneself.  There  must  be  two  sides  to  trade,  a 
selling  as  well  as  a  buying.  And  a  buying  from  a  land 
of  cheapest  men  means  a  selling  to  such  land,  and  a 
selling  upon  such  cheap  men  basis.  If  we  buy  a  great- 
er share  of  our  imports  of  tropical  goods  from  the  East 
Indies  we  must  buy  a  lesser  share  from  the  West.  And 
if  we  buy  less  from  the  West  there  must  come,  espe- 
cially with  a  rejuvenation  of  Cuba,  a  piling  up  of  pro- 
diK  ts  in  the  West  Indies  seeking  for  an  outlet,  a  con- 
sequent fall  in  jjrices  and  a  general  impoverishment  of 


366  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

the  peoples  of  those  ishmds.  Receiving  smaller  re- 
turns for  their  products  their  demands  for  our  pro- 
ducts must  he  restricted.  Consequently  a  natural  out- 
let for  the  surplus  products  of  our  farms  and  factories 
would  he  curtailed,  and  an  increase  in  outlet  to  a  like 
extent  cannot  he  hoped  for  among  the  poorer  peoples 
of  the  East  from  whom  we  may  choose  to  huy  in  pre- 
ference to  the  peoples  to  the  south  of  us  who  would  he 
our  l)etter  customers.  So  goods  would  pile  up  on  our 
markets  and  the  resulting  pressure  for  sale  force 
down  prices.  At  last  at  some  reduced  price  level  a 
market  would  be  found,  hut  in  finding  such  market  we 
would  further  pauperize  our  own  people.  To  then 
purchase  tropical  products  in  the  Orient  in  preference 
to  the  countries  to  the  south  of  us,  is  to  grind  down 
our  own  people  to  pauperism. 

NEAREST  MARKETS  BEST  MARKETS. 

So  we  see  it  is  not  always  to  one's  advantage  to  buy 
in  the  cheapest  markets.  As  we  set  out  by  saying  it 
is  to  our  advantage  to  buy,  what  not  producing  we 
must  import,  in  the  nearest  markets.  The  shorter  the 
distance  that  we  have  to  bring  foreign  purchases  the 
smaller  will  be  the  cost  of  transportation,  and  hence 
the  nearer  will  our  people  come  as  consumers  to  get- 
ting such  products  at  the  prices  the  producers  re- 
ceive. 

HENCE  HOME  TRADE  BETTER  THAN  EUROPEAN. 

It  is  for  this  very  same  reason  that  the  home  market 
is  preferable  to  a  foreign  market,  that  it  is  to  our  ad- 
vantage to  buy  what  we  can  of  ourselves.  It  may  be 
that  some  things  we  now  buy  of  ourselves  we  could 
get  for  less  money  of  foreigners  if  it  were  not  for  the 
tariff  duties,  but  if  such  foreign  cheapness  is  the  result 
of  cheap  labor,  we  care  not  whether  it  be  European  or 


OUR   SOUTH   AMERICAN    TRADE.  367 

Asiatic,  it  is  uot  to  our  advantage  to  avail  of  it.  To 
so  avail  would  throw  those  of  our  own  people  engaged 
in  such  production  out  of  work,  thus  make  an  in- 
creased pressure  on  the  labor  market  and  generally 
force  down  wages.  Nor  would  the  farmer  or  planter 
buying  such  cheap  foreign  goods  save,  for  the  impov- 
erishing of  the  laboring  population  would  cut  down 
the  home  consumption  and  demand  for  the  products 
of  the  farm  and  plantation  and  so  depress  prices. 

The  rejoinder  of  the  free  trader  is,  of  course,  that 
though  the  home  demand  would  be  curtailed  the  for- 
eign demand  would  be  increased  because  our  increased 
purchases  of  foreign  goods  would  enable  the  for- 
eigner to  purchase  more  of  ours.  And  this  we  may 
as  a  general  proposition  admit.  But  the  foreigner, 
though  his  returns  were  increased  as  much  as  the  re- 
turns of  our  manufacturer  and  his  hands  were  de- 
creased, could  not  purchase  as  much  of  our  agricul- 
tural products,  for  a  portion  of  such  returns  would  be 
absorbed  in  the  transportation  of  the  products  across 
the  sea.  Consequently  the  demand  for  such  products 
would  be  curtailed.  But  the  foreigner's  returns  would 
not  be  increased  to  the  full  amount  of  the  former  re- 
turns of  our  manufacturer  and  hands  forced  into  some 
other  pursuit,  for  the  American  farmer  getting  small- 
er returns  than  before  would  have  less  to  spend  for 
such  manufactured  goods  than  before,  and  then  from 
what  he  had  to  spend  would  have  to  be  deducted  the 
ocean  freight  charges  on  bringing  such  foreign  goods 
to  our  shores. 

So  to  avail  of  the  cheapness  of  foreign  goods  when 
such  cheapness  is  the  result  of  cheap  labor,  must  en- 
tail upon  us  the  loss  of  the  extra  sums  dispensed  on 
transportation  accounts  because  of  the  wide  separation 
of  producer  and  consumer.  And  so  to  avail  of  a  cheap- 
ness in  Oriental  markets  as  compared  to  South  Ameri- 


368  THE   GBEAT   ISSUES, 

can  or  West  Indian  markets,  when  such  clieapness  is 
due  to  cheaper  labor,  is  but  to  entail  u])on  ourselves  a 
loss  equal  to  the  diilerence  between  the  greater  cost 
of  bringing  the  produce  from  the  East,  the  more  dis- 
tant markets,  and  the  lesser  costs  of  bringing  similar 
produce  from  the  countries  of  this  hemisphere,  which 
for  us  are  much  the  nearer  markets. 

SOUTH  AMERICAN  TRADE  BETTER  THAN  EAST  INDIAN. 

Of  course,  where  cheapness  is  not  due  to  cheaper 
labor  but  to  some  natural  cause,  then  it  is  to  our  ad- 
vantage to  avail  of  such  cheapness.  In  other  words, 
where  any  other  people  have  a  natural  advantage  over 
us  in  the  production  of  some  article,  and  that  ad- 
vantage enables  them  to  produce  at  a  lesser  cost  of  labor 
and  energy  than  we  can,  a  lesser  cost  more  than  equal 
to  the  increased  cost  that  purchasing  from  them  will 
put  us  to  on  account  of  increased  costs  of  transporta- 
tion, then  it  is  to  our  advantage  to  buy  such  article, 
not  to  keep  out  such  article  by  tariff  duties  and  strive 
to  produce  it  for  ourselves.  And  when  there  are  sev- 
eral lands  equally  enjoying  such  natural  advantage, 
then  it  is  to  our  advantage  to  buy  in  the  nearest  and 
thus  keep  down  our  outlay  on  transportation  to  as 
small  a  figure  as  possible.  And  nearly  all  those  pro- 
ducts that  we  cannot  produce  on  terms  of  equality 
with  all  the  world  so  far  as  natural  conditions  favor- 
able to  production  are  concerned,  are  tropical  pro- 
ducts, and  products  conditions  for  the  production  of 
which  are  just  as  favorable  in  the  countries  lying  to 
the  south  of  us  as  anywhere  on  the  globe.  Conse- 
quently from  such  countries  as  the  nearest  we  should 
buy  in  preference  to  the  lands  of  the  East.  Eurther. 
there  are  many  things  Avhich  we  produce  but  which 
such  countries  cannot  produce  to  advantage.  Thus 
those  tropical  countries  lying  to  the  south  of  us  can- 
not produce  to  any  advantage  the  wheat  and  flour  they 


OUR  SOUTH  AMERICAN  TRADE.         369 

desire,  they  cannot  produce  to  any  economic  advan- 
tage many  articles  of  manufacture,  for  they  are  lacking 
in  coal  fields.  So  it  is  to  their  advantage  to  buy  such 
products,  buy  them  in  exchange  for  the  peculiar  pro- 
ducts of  the  tropics.  And  these  ihings  we  can  supply 
them  with.  What  is  more,  being  nearest  to  them  they 
should  naturally  look  to  us. 

AN   AMERICAN    ZOLLVEREIN. 

So  between  the  LTnited  States  and  the  countries  and 
islands  south  there  exist  all  the  elements  for  a  mutual- 
ly advantageous  trade,  a  trade  more  advantageous  for 
all  than  any  other  foreign  trade  can  possibly  be. 
Therefore  would  we  encourage  it,  encourage  it  if  wc 
could  have  our  way  even  to  the  extent  of  establishing 
a  commercial  union  that  would  secure  absolute  free 
trade  between  all  the  countries  of  the  Western  Hemi- 
sphere and  give  a  common  tariff  to  all.  And  into  such 
union  we  would  gladly  welcome  Canada.  Of  course 
such  extension  of  a  common  tariff  would  greatly  de- 
range the  revenue  systems  of  all  countries  concerned, 
and  oblige  all  to  look  up  new-  sources  of  revenue.  But 
we  would  have  no  regrets  for  such  derangement,  and 
the  disappearance  to  some  extent  of  the  practice  of 
raising  revenues  by  tariff  duties.  Indeed,  such  duties 
being  levied  on  consumption,  and  largely  on  articles 
of  general  consumption,  partake  much  of  the  nature 
of  per  capita  taxes,  as  such  are  inequitable  and  their 
supersession  by  juster  taxes,  taxes  imposed  not  upon 
men's  needs,  but  upon  what  they  have,  should  be  wel- 
comed. However,  the  plan  of  such  a  customs  union  is 
rather  Utopian,  and  as  such  we  hardly  need  stop  to 
discuss  such  questions  as  the  above,  though  the  bring- 
ing of  Cuba  as  well  as  Puerto  Rico  into  our  union,  so 
far  as  commercial  relations  are  concerned,  is  not  at  all 
improbable,  and  the  bringing  in  of  Cuba  and  the  con- 


370  THE   GREAT    ISSUES. 

sequent  nullification  of  the  sugar  duties  as  revenue 
yielders  would  raise  such  question. 

A  PAN-AMERICAN  BANK  AS  ENCOURAGEMENT  TO  TRADE. 

But  though  such  a  broad  American  customs  union 
is  not  yet  within  reach  the  right  direction  in  which  to 
extend  our  trade  is  with  the  countries  to  the  south  of 
us,  and  there  are  many  steps  short  of  the  forming  of  a 
customs  union  by  which  such  trade  can  be  greatly  en- 
couraged. And  it  being  so  much  worth  our  while  to 
cultivate  this  trade,  a  trade  that  must  be  advantageous 
to  us  above  all  others,  always  excepting  our  home 
trade,  we  are  disposed  to  look  most  favorably  on  any 
suggestion  for  the  encouragement  of  such  trade.  Some 
in  Congress  have  sought  to  give  such  encouragement 
through  an  international  American  bank,  and  urged 
upon  Congress  the  chartering  of  such  a  bank.  Just 
before  adjournment  over  the  holidays  this  proposition 
was  brought  to  a  head,  a  bill  authorizing  the  forma- 
tion of  such  banks  under  United  States  charters  being 
pressed  before  the  House.  But  the  House  in  its  wis- 
dom voted  down  the  bill,  though  not  so  much  as  a 
mark  of  opposition  to  the  chartering  of  an  interna- 
tional bank  as  from  the  fear  that  if  the  bill  were 
passed  great  branch  banks  would  be  organized  under 
the  name  of  international,  but  really  for  purposes  of 
domestic  banking. 

The  bill  provided  for  the  chartering  by  the  United 
States  of  banks  of  $5,000,000  or  more  capital,  with  the 
privilege  of  establishing  eight  branch  offices  in  the 
United  States,  and  as  many  branch  banks  in  the  coun- 
tries to  the  south  of  us  as  they  saw  fit.  At  present 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  American  bank  or  branch 
bank  in  a  South  American  country;  no  bank  in  the 
United  States  and  with  branches  in  South  America 
from  which  the  American  importer  can  buy  a  bill  of 


OUR   SOUTH   AMERICAN   TRADE.  371 

exchange  to  pay  for  the  goods  imported,  nor  a  bank 
through  which  the  American  exporter  to  South  Amer- 
ica can  send  liis  draft  for  collection.  As  a  conse- 
quence the  American  importer  pays  for  what  he  buys 
from  South  America  by  draft  on  London,  and  the 
American  exporter  sends  forward  his  draft  in  the  same 
way.  Of  course  the  London  banks  with  branches  in 
South  America,  and  thus  hired  to  make  settlements  for 
us,  charge  for  their  services,  and,  of  course,  they 
charge  as  much  for  such  service  as  they  do  British 
merchants.  But  the  only  way  Americans  can  secure 
such  services  is  through  the  agency  of  New  York  bank- 
ers, from  whom  they  must  buy  drafts  on  London,  to 
whom  the  exporters  must  sell  their  drafts  or  through 
whom  they  must  forward  their  drafts  to  London.  And, 
of  course,  for  such  service  the  New  York  bankers 
charge.  Consequently  our  importers  are  put  to  a  dou- 
ble expense  in  remitting  for  goods  bought  from  South 
America,  and  our  exporters  to  a  double  charge  in  mak- 
ing their  collections.  Of  necessity  this  puts  our  ex- 
porters at  a  disadvantage  as  compared  to  British,  a  dis- 
advantage amounting  to  the  charge,  or,  rather,  deduc- 
tion, made  by  the  New  York  banker  on  London  Ex- 
change. To  this  first  deduction  is,  of  course,  added 
the  charge  of  the  London  banker  for  South  xVmerican 
exchange. 

To  do  away  with  this  first  deduction  would  there- 
fore be  to  remove  a  handicap  from  our  exporters  to 
South  America,  under  which  they  now  lal)or,  and  en- 
courage exportation,  for  they  would  realize  more  for 
their  drafts,  and  hence  get  more  for  their  products, 
though  the  South  Americans  paid  no  more.  Of 
course  this  saving  would  amount  to  but  a  fraction  of 
1  per  cent.,  but  on  large  deals  savings  of  even  one- 
quarter  or  one-half  of  1  per  cent,  are  often  material. 
And  by  its  advocates  it  was  asserted  that  the  estab- 


372  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

lishment  of  an  international  bank,  with  headquarters 
in  New  York  and  numerous  branches  in  South  Amer- 
ica, would  make  possible  this  saving.  And  doubtless 
the  establishment  of  such  bank  would  lead  the  way  to 
such  saving.  Still  too  much  was  claimed  for  such  a 
bank  on  this  score.  It  should  be  remembered  that  it  is 
trade  that  makes  exchange,  that  it  is  the  export  of 
merchandise  that  enables  the  producers  of  one  coun- 
try to  draw  upon  the  people  of  others.  They  can 
draw  only  for  so  much  as  they  may  sell  their  goods  for. 
The  drafts  thus  drawn  pass  into  the  banks,  are  either 
sold  to  the  banks  or  given  to  the  banks  for  collection. 
In  either  case  the  banks  will  make  a  charge. 

SETTLING  FOR  OUR  PURCHASES. 

Now  suppose  an  international  American  bank 
should  be  established  and  all  the  drafts  of  American 
exporters  to  South  America  handed  over  to  it.  The 
bank  buying  such  an  amount  of  exchange  sent  forward 
to  its  branches  for  collection  would  obviously  have  an 
equal  amount  of  exchange  to  sell.  Now  the  import- 
ers, the  men  who  must  make  remittances  to  South 
America,  would  have  need  of  such  exchange,  they 
would  be  the  purchasers.  If  they  needed  no  more  ex- 
change than  the  exporters  had  sold  to  the  bank  a  bal- 
ance would  be  struck.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  our  im- 
porters would  need  double  the  amount  of  such  ex- 
change, for  our  imports  from  the  countries  to  the 
south  of  us  are  double  the  amount  of  exports.  This 
being  so,  what  would  the  bank  do?  Eefuse  to  sell  the 
extra  and  needed  exchange?  Not  at  all.  It  would 
raise  the  price  of  exchange  sufficient  to  enable  it  to 
pay  the  premium  that  London  bankers  might  demand 
for  exchange  on  South  America^  or  sufficient  to  pay 
the  costs  of  shipping  specie  to  the  South  American 
branches. 


OUR    SOUTH    AMERICAN    TRADE.  373 

But  in  all  probability  the  bank  would  buy  the 
needed  exchange  in  London,  for  London,  under  exist- 
ing trade  condition;?,  would  likely  have  such  exchange 
for  sale.  This  exchange  would  of  course  represent 
drafts  drawn  by  British  exporters  and  drafts  which 
the  London  bankers  can  annually  draw  to  a  very  con- 
siderable extent  against  interest  falling  due  on  their 
South  American  loans.  To  meet  these  drafts  South 
Americans  would  have  to  pay  money  into  the  branches 
of  the  London  banks.  The  American  bank  buying 
South  American  exchange  in  London  and  forwarding 
it  for  collection  would  cfl'cct  a  transfer  of  money  from 
the  London  branch  banks  to  its  own  branch  banks,  and 
then  the  South  Americans  selling  to  our  importers  and 
now  receiving  in  payments  drafts  sold  by  the  Ameri- 
can bank  and  drawn  upon  its  branches  would  present 
such  drafts  and  get  back  the  money  they  paid  into  the 
British  branch  banks.  Wc  here  have  taken  the  liberty 
of  speaking  of  the  drafts  as  if  paid  in  money.  Of 
course  in  practice  they  would  largely  be  paid  by  sim- 
ply a  transfer  of  credits  on  the  books  of  the  South 
American  banks,  a  transfer  from  importers  to  export- 
ers. 

TRIANGULAR  TRADE  AND  TRIANGULAR  EXCHANGES. 

But  from  what  we  have  said  it  is  very  clear  that  the 
mere  establishment  of  a  bank  would  not  free  us  from 
a  certain  dependence  on  London.  As  long  as  we  im- 
port from  the  countries  to  the  south  of  us  more  than 
we  export,  as  long  as  we  export  to  England  more  than 
we  import  therefrom,  as  long  as  London  runs  uj)  del)t 
against  South  America  faster  than  South  America 
through  exportation  of  her  products  to  England  runs 
up  an  offset,  just  so  long  will  we  buy  exchange  of  Lon- 
don to  make  settlements  in  South  America. 


374  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

"  At  present/'  remarks  the  New  York  "  Times," 
"  everything  we  buy  or  sell  in  South  America  is  paid 
for  through  London.  This  triangular  exchange  opera- 
tion is  cumbersome  and  costly."  And  so  it  is,  but  so 
long  as  there  continues  a  triangular  trade  between  the 
United  States,  Great  Britain  and  South  America  such 
triangular  exchange  operations  will  continue.  The 
course  of  exchange  follows  the  course  of  trade.  But 
this  Congressman  Brosius,  of  Pennsylvania,  who  had 
the  bank  bill  in  charge,  lost  sight  of,  and  so  claimed 
too  great  things  for  such  a  bank.  Yet  he  pointed  that 
"  we  pay  our  balance  to  South  America  indirectly  with 
the  British  goods  shipped  to  her  in  excess  of  what 
Great  Britain  imports  from  her,"  that  there  is  a  tri- 
angular trade,  that  "  British  ships  sail  with  goods  from 
British  ports  to  South  America,  thence  to  the  United 
States  with  sugar,  coffee,  teas  [a  peculiar  kind  of 
cargo  to  get  in  South  America]  and  spices,  and  finally 
return  to  Great  Britain  with  American  cotton  and 
food  products."  And,  we  repeat,  triangular  exchange 
operations  of  necessity  follow  such  triangular  trade, 
and  will  continue  just  as  long  as  such  trade. 

THE  WAT  OUT. 

The  way  to  stop  "  the  cumbersome  and  costly  "  tri- 
angular exchange  is  to  stop  the  triangular  trade;  an 
efl'ective  way  to  stop  this  triangular  trade  would  be  to 
impose  a  discriminating  duty  of  say  10  per  cent,  on  all 
imports  from  South  America  brought  in  foreign  bot- 
toms. This  would  prevent  British  ships  from  con- 
tinuing in  such  triangular  trade,  a  trade  that  now  en- 
ables British  exporters  to  get  lower  rates  on  freights 
to  South  American  ports  than  Americans  can  get.  and 
so  enables  them  to  market  their  products  cheaper.  But 
this  triangular  trade  discontinued,  a  direct  trade  would 
at  once  spring  up  between  the  United  States  and  the 


OUR    SOUTH    AMERICAN    TRADE.  S?.") 

countries  to  the  south  of  us  and  the  inestimable  ad- 
vantage the  British  exporter  now  has  in  lower  freight 
rates  would  disappear.  Indeed,  such  advantage  would 
be  transferred  to  the  American.  And  also  with  this 
direct  trade  would  come  direct  exchange  and  the  Brit- 
ish exporter  would  also  lose  the  advantage  he  now  has 
in  cheaper  exchange  facilities.  Under  such  encour- 
gagement  to  trade,  or  rather  removal  of  handicaps  to 
our  export  trade  to  South  America,  such  trade  would 
rapidly  expand,  and  we  would  gain  independence  of 
British  bankers,  British  exchanges,  British  ships  to 
our  inestimable  advantage. 

But  really  the  proposal  to  establish  an  interna- 
tional bank  as  a  means  of  ridding  ourselves  of  the  cost- 
ly triangular  exchange  operations  is  beginning  at  the 
wrong  end.  Do  away  with  the  triangular  trade  upon 
which  the  triangular  exchanges  rest,  and  such  ex- 
changes will  not  continue  to  exist  as  a  hindrance  to 
our  trade.  So  we  need  harbor  no  pungent  regret  over 
the  defeat  of  the  international  bank  bill,  a  bill  de- 
feated, be  it  repeated,  not  because  of  opposition  to  the 
incorporation  of  a  bank  to  do  an  international  exchange 
business,  but  because  it  was  feared  that  if  the  pro- 
posed bill  were  made  law  it  would  be  availed  of  to  or- 
ganize a  branch  banking  system  in  the  United  States, 
a  series  of  large  banks,  each  with  eight  branch  offices 
in  the  United  States  as  authorized,  but  only  two  or 
three  branches  outside  to  keep  up  the  fiction  of  being 
international,  and  to  conform  to  the  requirements  of 
the  law.  And  as  a  bill  authorizing  the  establishment 
of  a  banking  monopoly  it  was,  somewhat  unreasonably, 
opposed. 

OUR  TRADE  WITH  SOUTHERN  LANDS. 

Eight  years  ago  Mr.  Blaine,  then  Secretary  of  State, 
and  in  urging  the  establishment  of  a  Pan-American 


376  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

bank,  wrote:  "Last  year  |  he  meant  the  fiscal  year  1888] 
our  commerce  with  the  countries  south  of  us  amounted 
to  $882,005,057,  of  which  the  imports  of  merchandise 
were  $181,058,9(56,  and  the  imports  of  specie  and  bul- 
lion were  $21,236,791,  while  our  exports  consisted  of 
merchandise  to  the  value  of  $71,938,181,  and  $8,668,- 
470  in  specie  and  bullion."  And  then  he  added:  "  Of 
the  merchandise  imported  into  the  United  States  the 
greater  part  was  paid  for  by  remittances  to  London 
and  the  cities  of  the  continent." 

How  could  it  have  been  otherwise?  We  needed  ex- 
change to  the  amount  of  $200,000,000,  we  had  ex- 
change of  our  own  making  to  the  amount  of  only  $80,- 
000,000,  we  had  to  buy  the  balance  from  those  who 
had  it  to  sell,  the  London  and  Continental  bankers. 
And  these  bankers  had  this  exchange  to  sell,  why? 
The  London  bankers  to  a  small  amount  because  in 
minor  degree  British  exports  to  such  countries  ex- 
ceeded imports  therefrom,  but  largely  because  of  the 
large  interest  payments  due  by  South  American  coun- 
tries to  European  money  lenders;  the  continental  bank- 
ers entirely  because  of  such  latter  reason.  In  fact. 
South  American  countries  have  to  pay  about  $200,000,- 
000  in  Europe  every  year  as  interest  on  money  bor- 
rowed. They  of  course  pay  this  by  exports  of  their  pro- 
duce, the  excess  of  exports  over  imports  being  available 
for  such  use.  And  so  it  is  that  they  have  been  drawing 
upon  us  yearly  to  make  payment  of  a  large  part  of 
such  indebtedness. 

Thus  we  have  seen  how  in  1888  we  imported  $181,- 
000,000  worth  of  merchandise  from  the  countries  to 
the  south  of  us  and  exported  $72,000,000  worth  of 
merchandise  to  them.  In  the  years  following  and  un- 
der the  stimulus  of  the  reciprocity  treaties  of  the 
McKinley  law  our  trade  expanded  greatly,  our  imports 
from  such  countries  for  the  fiscal  year  1892,  being  re- 


OUR  SOUTH  AMERICAN  TRADE.         377 

ported  at  about  $290,000,000  and  our  exports  at  $93,- 
000,000  wortli.  This  was  the  banner  year.  In  1894, 
our  export.s  were  about  the  same  but  imports  had 
fallen  to  $236,000,000.  It  may  here  ])e  remarked  that 
this  fall  was  in  values  rather  than  in  quantities.  In 
1895  there  came  the  outbreak  of  the  Cuban  rebellion 
and  the  annihilation  of  our  trade  with  that  island,  a 
trade  that  had  constituted  more  than  one-fourth  of 
our  total  trade  with  the  countries  to  the  south  of  us. 
Consequently  a  decline  in  trade  for  the  last  years  is 
only  natural.  Thus  we  find  imports  for  1896  valued 
at  $194,000,000;  for  1897,  at  $172,000,000;  for  1898, 
at  $151,000,000.  Exports  during  the  same  years  held 
up  comparatively  well,  $93,000,000  for  1896;  $92,- 
000,000  for  1897;  $88,000,000  for  1898. 

As  compared  to  the  total  value  of  our  imports,  the 
imports  from  the  countries  to  the  south  of  us  aggre- 
gated for  the  years  1892  and  1894,  35  per  cent,  of  the 
whole,  for  the  years  1896-98  only  ,25  per  cent.  And  as 
nearly  all  our  importations  from  such  countries  are 
tropical  products  this  shows  a  striking  deprivation  of 
ordinary  supplies.  The  great  falling  off  is  to  be  noted 
in  sugar,  and  this  falling  off  has  not  been  made  good 
from  other  tropical  countries  while  our  consumption 
of  sugar  has  increased.  Of  course,  we  get  it  some- 
where and  that  somewhere  is  Germany. 

As  we  have  said,  our  trade  relations  with  the  West 
Indies  have  been  turned  topsy-turvy  by  the  Spanish 
Cuban  troul)les,  so  much  so  indeed  that  instead  of  im- 
porting two  dollars'  worth  of  produce  from  Mexico, 
Central  America  and  the  West  Indies  for  every  dollar's 
worth  exported,  we  have  been  exporting  almost  as 
much  as  importing,  for.  leaving  Cuba  out,  our  trade 
with  the  balance  of  those  islands  and  states  has  about 
balanced  for  some  years.  But  looking  at  South 
America  alone  we  find  our  imports  for  the  last  three 


378  TUK    (illKAT    ISSUES, 

years  to  have  averaged  about  $100,000,000  and  exports 
about  $33,000,000.  We  would  here  further  remark 
that  one-half  of  these  imports  by  value  are  made  up  of 
coffee,  lo  per  cent,  more  of  India  rubber  and  5  per 
cent,  of  cocoa  and  spices,  all  products  that  we  cannot 
raise  for  ourselves.  What  is  more,  it  is  worthy  of 
note  and  as  showing  the  general  non-competitive  char- 
acter of  our  importations  from  South  America,  that 
of  our  $107,000,000  worth  of  imports  in  the  fiscal  year 
1897  $100,000,000  were  free,  and  of  the  $7,000,000  of 
dutiable  imports  a  goodly  part  was  sugar.  In  fine, 
South  America  has  just  what  we  want  and  cannot  sup- 
ply ourselves  with,  and  we  can  supply  her  with  all  the 
things  that  she  cannot  supply  herself  with  to  advan- 
tage. Thus  here  is  the  foundation  for  the  most 
profitable  and  mutually  satisfactory  trade,  and  in 
bending  our  efforts  to  extend  our  foreign  trade  it  is 
this  that  we  should  cultivate, 


TEERITORIAL  vs.  TRADE  EXPANSION. 

[August  27tb,  1898.] 

THERE  come  times  in  nations'  histories  when, 
dazzled  with  tales  of  distant  riches,  they  aban- 
don the  wealth  at  their  own  feet  to  exploit  the 
resources  of  other  peoples,  when  dropping  thought  of 
the  possibilities  of  trade  expansion  at  their  own  doors 
they  bend  their  energies,  make  national  sacrifices  to 
extend  their  trade  with  distant  countries.  Around 
such  trade,  especially  when  won  by  war  and  bloody 
strife,  there  gathers  a  glamor  that  leads  people  to  un- 
duly magnify  its  importance,  and,  appealing  to  their 
commercial  spirit,  tempts  them  on  to  further  terri- 
torial expansion  as  a  means  to  trade  expansion,  while 
quite  disqualifying  them  to  stop  and  ask  themselves  if 
the  game  is  worth  the  candle.  If  they  could  strip  the 
foreign  trade  of  its  glamor  and  dispassionately  weigh 
it  with  that  which  has  been  overlooked  athome,  the  wealth 
that  has  been  cast  aside  undeveloped  in  obtaining  it 
against  that  which  has  been  gained  abroad,  we  are  prone 
to  believe  they  would  find  that  they  were  not  pursuing 
the  direct  path  to  their  enrichment  and  happiness  and 
national  greatness.  The  making  of  a  market  for  goods 
at  the  cannon's  mouth  is  certainly  not  deserving  of  the 
encouragement  of  unalloyed  success,  and  though  the 
glamor  of  success  will  be  prone  to  attach  to  a  market 
thus  opened,  we  doubt  much  if  a  market  so  opened  has 
ever  resulted  in  national  enrichment,  doubt  if  as  great 
wealth  has  been  reaped  from  the  opening  of  such  mar- 
ket as  has  been  lost  in  skipping  and  abandoning  wealth 
to  be  had  through  pursuit  of  the  natural  channels  of 
trade. 


380  THK    ORKAT    ISSUES, 

History  tells  us  of  many  nations  that,  dazzled  by 
riches  to  which  distance  has  lent  glamor,  blinded  to 
the  wealth  at  their  feet  needing  only  labor  to  uncover 
by  the  prospects  of  gain  by  exploiting  the  riches  of 
other  peoples,  have  embarked  on  careers  of  territorial 
expansion  with  a  view  to  national  enrichment.  Thus 
did  Greece  embark  and  fall,  thus  did  Rome  embark 
with  like  result,  thus  did  Spain  embark  to  meet  wreck. 
The  losses  in  overshooting  sources  of  home  wealth 
were  greater  than  the  gains  from  the  forced  and  un- 
natural trade  with  other  peoples.  And  so  came  not  na- 
tional enrichment  and  greatness,  but  impoverishment 
and  decline. 

But  of  all  nations  that  have  pursued  this  path  the 
one  that  has  pursued  it  most  systematically  is  pointed 
to  as  a  brilliant  example  of  the  national  greatness  and 
wealth  and  power  that  can  be  attained  by  a  policy  of 
forcing  trade  expansion,  making  a  market  for  goods  at 
the  cannon's  mouth.  Thus  is  the  power  of  Great 
Britain  pointed  to.  But  has  Britain,  a  country  that 
has  so  abandoned  her  agricultural  interests  in  extend- 
ing her  markets  for  manufactured  goods,  that  her  rul- 
ers now  seriously  give  thought  to  the  construction  of 
national  granaries  in  which  a  store  of  imported  grain 
may  be  kept  that  British  people  may  not  be  starved  in 
the  event  of  war,  and  the  temporary  cutting  off  of  for- 
eign food  supplies,  a  country  that  has  made  herself 
dependent  upon  others  for  her  food,  that  has  permitted 
her  agricultural  interests  to  languish  and  undermined 
a  home  market  for  manufactured  goods  while  forcing 
another  market  at  the  cannon's  mouth,  has  the  Britain 
that  has  done  this  and  impoverished  her  Ireland  and 
her  India  into  the  bargain  added  to  her  power  and 
greatness?  Stronger  and  richer  she  has  undoubtedly 
grown  while  pursuing  this  path  of  territorial  expan- 
sion, but  is  she  as  strong,  are  her  people  as  rich  as 


TERRITOEIAL    VS.    TRADE    EXPANSION,  381 

they  would  be  if  she  had  not  abandoned  the  develop- 
ment of  her  own  resources,  had  not  dropped  industry 
and  trade  developed  in  natural  channels  to  take  up 
and  develop  trade  opened  at  the  cannon's  mouth? 

To  such  question  no  definite  answer  can  be  given. 
But  some  light  we  can  throw  upon  it.  And  first,  what 
is  the  extent  of  the  trade  that  Britain  has  trained 
through  territorial  expansion?  In  all  her  colonies 
and  possessions  she  found  in  189G  a  market  for  but 
i90,6,')0,001  worth  of  goods,  or  less  than  $450,000,U0O. 
Of  course  her  territorial  expansion  policy,  her  display 
and  use  of  militant  force  may  have  resulted  in  extend- 
ing markets  outside  of  her  possessions  and  that  other- 
wise would  not  have  been  opened.  But  on  the  other 
band  all  the  trade  with  what  are  now  her  possessions 
cannot  fairly  be  said  to  have  been  gained  through  ter- 
ritorial expansion.  Some  part  at  least  of  the  markets 
which  she  now  has  she  could  have  obtained  without 
territorial  expansion.  Surely  she  could  have  found 
such  markets  as  far  as  the  people?  over  whom  she  has 
extended  her  rule  and  influence  had  cared  for  and  been 
able  to  purchase  what  she  has  to  sell.  She  could  have 
found  a  market  just  as  we  have  found  a  market  in 
China  and  Japan  for  some  $35,000,000  worth  of  goods 
a  year. 

It  may  be  said  indeed  that  Chinese  and  Japanese 
markets  would  have  been  closed  to  us  if  they  had  not 
been  opened  to  the  world  by  British  guns.  But  the 
people  has  yet  to  be  found,  civilized  or  barbaric,  who 
will  refuse  to  exchange  their  goods  when  offered  goods 
in  return  that  they  consider  of  greater  value.  It  is 
only  when  the  attempt  is  made  to  force  people  to  trade 
against  their  will  that  they  will  resist,  when  the  at- 
tempt is  made  to  exploit  them  that  the  way  for  trade, 
or  we  had  better  call  it  robbery,  must  be  forced  at  the 
cannon's  mouth.     And  it  may  well  be  gravely  ([ues- 


382  'JJIK    (iUEAT    ISSUES. 

tioned  if  such  a  policy  profits  in  the  end,  may  well  be 
questioned  if  a  more  profitable  trade  could  not  be  built 
up  by  honest  means.  As  it  is,  trade  of  the  Western 
world  with  China  has  partaken,  especially  in  its  incep- 
tion, much  of  the  nature  of  piratical  business.  In- 
deed, English  and  American  houses  of  reputation  open- 
ly sought  riches  in  China  by  piracy.  We  say  this  weigh- 
ing our  words  and  with  knowledge. 

And  English  trade  partook  much  of  the  same  nature 
in  India.  The  whole  rule  of  the  l^^ast  India  Company 
was  one  of  extortion  and  robl)ery.  But  even  granting 
that  foreign  trade  can  be  made  more  profitable  in  the 
end  by  availing  of  militant  superiority  to  despoil  and 
impoverish  one's  customers,  it  does  not  follow  that  a 
nation  can  add  to  its  strength,  its  riches,  by  such  use 
of  force  to  expand  trade.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  likely 
that  a  people  tempted  to  embark  in  such  trade  will 
divert  to  it  energies  and  labor  that  could  be  spent  to 
greater  profit  in  the  development  of  trade  and  indus- 
try in  other  channels.  And  so  we  believe  it  has  been 
with  the  British  people.  We  believe  the  trade  pur- 
chased at  the  cannon's  mouth  has  been  accompanied 
by  a  loss  of  domestic  trade  infinitely  greater,  that  the 
foreign  market  for  goods  made  by  force  has  not 
equalled  the  check  to  the  home  market  through  the 
undermining  of  British  agricultural   interests. 

But  as  other  peoples  have  been  dazzled  by  distant 
riches  and  the  dream  of  national  enrichment  by  forc- 
ing trade  with  foreign  peoples  so  it  seems  that  a  good- 
ly part  of  our  people  are  now  dazzled.  So  we  are 
urged  to  hold  the  Philippines  as  an  entering  wedge  to 
trade  expansion  in  the  east,  so  we  are  told  that  un- 
less we  pursue  the  role  of  territorial  expansion  the 
possibilities  of  trade  expansion  will  be  closed  to  us. 
China,  we  are  told,  is  on  the  verge  of  dissolution,  of 
absorption  by  foreign  nations  who  will  be  likely  to 


TERRITORIAL   VS.   TRADE   EXPANSION.  383 

respectively  foster  their  own  trade  by  discriminating 
against  American  and  other  goods.  So  it  is  said  we 
would  be  shut  of!"  from  trade  expansion  by  discrimi- 
nating duties  raised  by  our  rivals,  not  only  this,  but 
that  we  would  lose  the  market  we  already  have.  We 
exported  in  1897  to  China  and  Hong  Kong  $l(),2r)8,- 
094  worth  of  produce  and  this  market  we  are  told  will 
be  closed  to  us  unless  we  join  hands  with  England  to 
uphold  the  Chinese  lunpire  that  we  may  exploit  it  to- 
gether and  grow  rich  out  of  its  exploitation. 

Now  our  exports  of  $1G,000,000  to  China  seem  small 
beside  the  total  figure  of  our  exports  for  the  year  of 
over  $1,200,000,000,  but  it  is  a  fact  that  our  exports 
to  China  are  nearly  one-half  as  large  as  the  exports  of 
(ireat  Britain,  and  that  the  imports  into  China  from 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  make  up  fully 
one-thir<l  of  her  total  imports.  Besides,  a  very  consid- 
erable market  is  found  in  China  for  British  Indian 
produce.  Consequently,  small  as  our  interest  is  as 
compared  to  our  whole  trade  it  is  quite  large  propor- 
tionately to  the  trade  with  China.  And  so  it  is  said 
that  our  interest  is  to  annex  the  Philippines  and  by 
Ihe  display  and  if  need  be  use  of  militant  force  join 
hands  \vith  Britain  to  prevent  the  disruption  of  China. 
This  policy  is  all  urged  upon  us  as  the  path  to  trade 
expansion.  To  trade  expansion  territorial  expansion 
is,  it  is  said,  the  stepping  stone  and  so  the  insistent  de- 
mand for  the  annexation  of  the  Philippines,  a  demand 
springing  not  from  any  sense  of  duty  to  the  people  of 
those  islands,  but  from  pure  commercial  selfishness. 

Now  we  do  not  believe  that  the  disruption  of  China 
is  impending.  We  are  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
mutual  jealousies  of  the  powers  of  Europe  will  pre- 
vent, that  unable  to  agree  upon  a  division  of  the  spoils 
no  division  can  take  place.  And  so  we  are  disposed 
to  consider  this  argument  put  forth  by  our  territorial 


384  THE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

expansionists,  by  those  who  demand  territorial  expan- 
sion as  a  means  to  self  and  national  enrichment  by  the 
despoilment  of  other  peoples,  as  more  of  a  bugbear 
than  anything  else.  But  suppose  we  grant  that  to 
keep  open  the  markets  of  China  we  must  join  England 
in  a  display  of  militant  strength  and  inaugurate  that 
display  by  taking  the  Philippines  and  mobilizing  a 
powerful  fleet  in  eastern  waters.  If  we  grant  this,  the 
({uestion  to  decide  is  this:  Is  it  worth  our  while?  And 
as  the  gain  to  be  had  is  purely  commercial,  we  may  as 
well  proceed  to  consider  it  in  a  purely  commercial 
spirit. 

To  begin  with,  we  may  as  well  state  that  the  total 
foreign  trade  of  China  in  1895,  was  $245,700,000,  and 
in  1896,  $260,208,000,  and  that  in  the  latter  year, 
$158,301,000,  consisted  of  import  trade.  That  is, 
China  made  a  market  in  1896  for  $158,000,000  worth 
of  foreign  goods.  This  is  a  strikingly  small  trade  for 
a  nation  of  perhaps  400,000,000  of  people.  Indeed, 
it  is  so  small  as  compared  to  our  domestic  trade  as  to 
be  hardly  worth  consideration.  As  it  amounts  to  not 
more  than  2|  per  cent,  of  our  domestic  trade  we 
should  take  just  forty  times  the  pains  to  conserve  our 
domestic  trade  as  to  capture  this  China  trade.  And 
then  we  cannot  hope  to  capture  the  whole  of  this 
China  trade.  If  we  join  hands  with  England  to  keep 
it  open,  surely  England  will  want  some  of  it.  True,  it 
may  be  well  urged  that  under  joint  British  and  Ameri- 
can exploitation  the  market  would  expand.  But  wo 
are  not  at  all  certain  of  this.  India,  with  a  population 
two-thirds  as  great  as  China  and  under  British  rule, 
only  makes  a  market  for  about  $225,000,000  worth  of 
produce  a  year,  of  which  about  $150,000,000  is  British. 

So  if  we  take  past  experience  for  our  guide  we  can- 
not look  for  any  enormous  expansion  of  the  markets 
for  foreign  goods  in  China.     Bear  also  in  mind  that  in 


TEEKITOIUAI.    VS.    TRADE    EXPANSION.  385 

Japan  we  would  lind  a  powerful  competitor  for  the 
Chinese  markets^.  For  several  years  the  exports  of 
Japan  to  China  have  increased  greatly,  while  the  ex- 
ports of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  have,  in 
the  aggregate,  hardly  held  their  own.  The  great  gain 
of  Japanese  exports  to  China  has  been  coincident  with 
the  fall  in  exchange  consequent  upon  the  decline  in 
the  gold  value  of  silver.  The  result  of  such  fall  was  to 
make  greater  the  silver  cost  of  everything  bought 
from  gold-using  countries  and  for  which  the  same  gold 
price  was  asked.  Consequently,  the  cost  in  China  of 
goods  bought  from  England  and  America  was  increased 
with  every  fall  in  exchange  unless  gold  prices  were  cut 
proportionately  with  such  fall.  But  not  so  with  Japan- 
ese goods  produced  on  a  silver  basis.  The  Japanese 
manufacturer  of  cotton  yarns,  etc.,  with  fixed  charges 
payable  in  silver  and  wages  payable  in  silver,  found  the 
silver  costs  of  production  in  no  way  increased  by  the 
fall  in  the  gold  price  of  silver,  and  so  could  afford  to  sell 
for  the  sanu;  price  in  silver,  despite  the  fall  in  the  gold 
value  of  silver.  Consequently,  he  found  it  easy  to  un- 
dersell his  English  and  American  competitors.  In- 
dustry in  Japan  was  greatly  stimulated,  and  by  and  by 
wages  rose,  but  with  the  increased  production  came 
economies  that  made  it  possible  to  still  turn  out  goods 
at  about  the  same  cost. 

And  what  was  true  of  the  Japanese  manufacturer 
was  true  also  of  the  manufacturer  located  in  China, 
and  in  much  larger  measure  since  the  abandonment  of 
the  silver  basis  by  Japan  a  year  ago.  Since  such  aban- 
donment, tall  in  exchange  in  China*  on  gold-using 
countries,  of  which  Japan  is  now  one,  has,  the  Japan- 
ese price  remaining  unchanged,  increased  the  cost  to 
the  Chinese  of  Japanese  goods.  Hence,  fresh  stimu- 
lus to  Chinese  manufacturing,  the  producer  in  China 
being  protected  by  the  fall  in  exchange  much  as  he 


S86  THK    GREAT    ISSUES. 

would  by  a  protective  tariff  for  such  fall  necessitates 
the  asking  of  a  higher  price  to  net  the  same  price  to 
the  Japanese  manufacturer  just  as  would  the  collec- 
tion of  a  tariff  duty. 

So  it  is  in  no  way  surprising  that  the  market  for 
Japanese  goods  in  China  has  expanded,  while  the  inar- 
ket  for  British  and  American  goods  has  stood  still,  nor 
is  it  surprising  that  manufactories  for  the  fabrication 
of  yarns  and  cotton  goods  formerly  brought  from 
abroad  have  been  established  to  a  very  considerable 
extent  m  China.  But  though  the  imports  into  China 
from  the  United  States  and  Britain  have  not  increased 
during  the  last  fifteen  years  it  is  a  fact  worthy  of  re- 
mark that  the  proportion  of  the  trade  held  by  the 
United  States  has  very  greatly  increased.  Thus  in 
1881  the  total  imports  into  China  from  Britain  and 
the  United  States  were  about  $58,000,000  and  in  1897 
about  $53,000,000.  But  in  the  first  year  the  propor- 
tions were  Britain,  $50,000,000,  United  States,  $8,- 
000,000;  in  the  latter  $35,000,000  and  $18,000,000. 
This  is  the  highest  figure  ever  attained  for  exports  of 
the  United  States  to  China  and  Hong  Kong.  In  the 
fiscal  year,  1897,  our  exports  fell  to  S16,358,09l. 
It  is  not  to  be  hastily  concluded  from  this  decline, 
however,  that  the  American  export  trade  to  China  has 
reached  a  final  turning  point,  for  a  glance  at  the  trade 
returns  shows  that  exportations  from  America  to 
China  direct  and  to  China  through  Hong  Kong  have 
fluctuated  very  greatly  from  year  to  year. 

Still  there  is  little  reason  to  look  for  any  great  ex- 
pansion of  the  Chinese  markets  for  American  or  Brit- 
ish or  any  other  foreign  goods.  Nor  is  there  any  rea- 
sonable probability  that  such  expansion  can  be  forced 
by  a  display  of  militant  force  such  as  may  be  depended 
upon  to  secure  the  opening  of  more  ports  to  foreign 
commerce  or  by  the  absorption  of  China  by  the  sundry 


TEERITOElAL   VS.   TRADE    EXPANSION.  3S? 

iiatious  seeking  after  trade  expansion  in  territorial 
extension. 

China  is  beyond  a  doubt  a  country  of  unsurpassed 
natural  resources.  It  is  also  unquestioned  that  those 
resources  remain  undeveloped.  There  are  anthracite 
coal  fields  undoubtedly  more  extensive  and  apparently 
richer  than  the  anthracite  fields  of  Pennsylvania,  there 
uie  bituminous  fields  that  can  he  paralleled,  if  at  all, 
only  by  our  own,  there  are  rich  iron  deposits  in  close 
proximity  to  the  coal  such  as  promise  the  production 
of  iron  and  steel,  of  iron  and  steel  for  China's  develop- 
ment, at  prices  at  which  American  and  liritish  and 
Clernum  iron  masters  cannot  hope  to  lay  down  iron 
and  steel  in  China,  there  is  in  the  immense  Yangtse 
Valley,  a  valley  paralleled  by  the  Mississippi,  only  that 
it  runs  in  an  opjiosite  direction,  between  degrees  of 
latitude  rather  than  longitude,  an  area  suited  to  cot- 
ton culture  that  rivals  if  it  does  not  surpass  our  own, 
and  withal  a  country  teeming  with  a  laborious  popu- 
lation, a  population  as  bidable  as  it  is  industrious  and 
teeming,  and  such  as  insures  the  development  of  all 
China's  great  and  nascent  resources,  a  development 
that  will  be  appalling  in  its  rapidity  to  the  rest  of  the 
world,  the  moment  the  path  is  paved  for  the  entrance 
of  Americans  and  Europeans  to  give  direction.  And 
those  Americans  and  Europeans  who  thus  expatriate 
themselves  will  doubtless  have  opportunities  to  richly 
recompense  themselves,  some  have  the  opportunities 
and  keenness  to  amass  great  fortunes.  But  they  will 
do  so  not  by  developing  trade  with  China  but  trade 
within  China. 

This  is  a  point  that  we  would  impress.  China  is  a 
country  of  unsurpassed  productive  cajjacity,  but  not, 
at  present,  of  great  consumjitive  capacity.  And  that 
consumptive  capacity  cannot  grow  until  her  productive 
capacity  grows,  save  so  far  as  Europeans  and  Ameri- 


388  TUE    GREAT    ISSUES. 

cans,  anticipating  the  future,  may  loan  capital  to 
China,  giving  steel  rails  and  locomotives  and  machi- 
nery in  return  for  bonds,  or  so  far  as  Chinese  with 
hoarded  gold  and  silver,  also  anticipating  the  future, 
may  part  with  such  metal  and  spend  it  to  bring  pro- 
ductive capital,  such  as  we  have  already  mentioned, 
from  abroad.  But  such  importation  of  material  can 
be  but  of  a  temporary  nature,  for  China  has  within 
herself  the  means  to  develop  herself,  all  the  means  but 
that  energy  possessed  of  the  Western  nations  and 
needed  to  give  direction  to  the  immeasurable  resources 
of  her  people.  And  that  energy  she  must  import. 
She  will  have  occasion,  in  her  development,  to  import 
but  little  else. 

Of  course,  as  her  resources  are  developed  and  the 
productive  capacity  of  her  people  increases,  so  will  the 
consumptive  capacity.  As  her  people  produce  more 
wealth  they  will  consume  more  wealth,  but  there  is 
no  reason  to  believe  that  they  will  buy  largely  of 
foreign  peoples.  They  will  indeed  consume  more 
goods,  but  they  will  be  in  position  to  fill  their  own 
wants.  Their  consumptive  capacity  will  only  in- 
crease with  their  productive  capacity,  and  there 
is  every  reason  to  believe  that  they  can  and  will  make 
everything  the}''  want  and  at  less  cost  than  other  peo- 
ples can  make  and  deliver  such  goods  to  them.  Con- 
sequently they  will  buy  of  themselves,  not  of  others. 

So  we  need  not  look  to  China  for  a  great  market  for 
our  products.  When  the  development  of  China  comes, 
whether  it  comes  as  an  empire,  or  a  divided  people 
under  the  tutelage  of  others  and  as  come  soon  it  must. 
Chinamen  will  supply  their  own  markets.  Chinese 
rail  mills  will  roll  the  rails  for  Chinese  railroads.  Chi- 
nese manufactories  will  make  the  cloth  to  clothe  Chi- 
nese backs.  In  other  words,  China  will  become  no  more 
dependent  than  she  is  now.     She  will  be  self-sustain- 


TERRITORIAL   VS.   TRADE   EXPAXSION.  389 

ing,  capable  of  making  practically  all  that  her  people 
consume  cheaper  than  others  can  supply  them,  and  so 
making  and  not  importing,  China,  developed,  will  be 
an  agricultural  and  mining  and  manufacturing  coun- 
try, not  an  importing.  The  prime  question  for  the 
people  of  the  rest  of  the  world  will  not  be  whether 
they  may  manufacture  to  clothe  the  bajcks  of  the  Chi- 
nese, but  whether  the  awakened  Chinese  may  not 
clothe  the  backs  of  others. 

So  territorial  expansion  or  no  territorial  expansion, 
we  need  not  count  on  extending  our  exports  to  China. 
We  produce  nothing  that  China  does  not  or  cannot  pro- 
duce, not  even  petroleum.  And  on  her  part  she  can 
produce  little  that  we  do  not  and  may  want,  save  silk 
and  tea.  And  as  both  countries  are  blessed  with  nat- 
ural resources  unsurpassed  the  people  of  each  coun- 
try can,  in  the  natural  order  of  things,  make  that 
which  they  want  at  a  less  labor  cost  tlian  either  can 
import  from  the  other.  Consequently  there  is  no 
room  for  a  great  and  advantageous  trade  to  spring  up 
between  them.  True,  because  of  a  lower  scale  of  liv- 
ing, Chinese  may  produce  goods  for  a  smaller  money 
cost  than  we  can,  but  for  us  to  purchase  such  goods 
would  be  simply  to  reduce  our  own  people  to  the  Chi- 
nese level,  and  so  importations  of  such  goods  we  can- 
not permit  if  we  would  have  a  regard  for  our  own  in- 
terests. And  we  may  add  that  not  buying  more  large- 
ly from  China,  China  cannot  buy  more  largely  from 
us. 

So  we  repeat  there  is  little  to  be  looked  for  in  the 
direction  of  finding  increased  and  sustained  markets 
for  our  produce  in  China.  There  are  countries  that 
we  may  rightly  expect  to  buy  more  of  our  products, 
and  those  are  the  countries  supplying  products  of  a 
kind  we  do  not  and  cannot  profitably  produce,  and 
hence  must  import.     And  those  are  countries  lying  in 


390  THE   GREAT   ISSUES. 

clifi'erent  latitudes  than  our  own  and  China  is  not  one 
of  them.  And  to  this  requirement  of  different  lati- 
tude we  may  add  the  requirement  of  the  same  general 
longitude.  This  is  lor  the  reason  that  it  is  cheaper  to 
buy  from  near  markets  than  remote  markets,  cheaper 
to  buy  from  the  West  Indies  lying  at  our  doors  than 
from  the  East  Indies,  cheaper  to  buy  our  coffee  from 
Brazil  than  from  Java,  the  tropical  products  we  con- 
sume from  Cuba  than  from  the  Philippines.  And 
cheaper  we  say  it  is  however  much  cheaper  may  be 
the  money  cost  of  producing  in  the  Philippines  or 
Java  than  in  the  West  Indies.  Where  natural  condi- 
tions of  production  are  equal,  where  the  labor  costs  of 
production  in  the  West  and  East  Indies  are  the  same, 
where  the  labor  costs  of  transporting  to  our  markets 
are  obviously  less  from  the  West  Indies  than  from  the 
East,  it  is  to  our  interest  to  buy  from  the  Wc-t.  from 
our  neighbors.  If  we  buy  under  such  conditions  from 
the  East  Indies  we  simply  waste  labor  in  transporta- 
tion, aud  though  we  may  fill  our  needs  at  less  money 
outlay  we  by  the  same  act  restrict  the  markets  for  our 
products,  force  the  sale  of  what  our  own  people  make 
for  less  money,  and  so  cheapen  labor  with  the  result 
that  nothing  is  gained,  something  lost. 

What  we  need  to  extend  our  foreign  trade  in 
profitable  directions  is  not  territorial  expansion,  but  a 
customs  union  with  all  the  Americas. 

As  to  the  Philippines  they  lie  not  in  the  path  of 
what  for  us  is  true  trade  expansion.  If  they  pro- 
duced products  that  could  not  be  raised  as  advanta- 
geously nearer  home  it  would  be  to  our  interest  to  buy 
from  them.  But  of  such  products  we  are  aware  of 
only  one,  the  far-famed  Manila  hemp,  which,  by  the 
way,  is  not  a  hemp  at  all,  but  the  fiber  of  an  unedibK' 
variety  of  banana  which  it  has  so  far  l)een  found  im- 
possible to  successfully  grow  outside  of  the  Philip- 
pines.    So  outside  of  trade  in  this  Manila  hemp  we 


TEEEITORIAL    VS.   TRADE   EXPANSION.  oHl 

can  only  expand  our  trade  with  the  Philippines  at  the 
expense  of  our  trade  with  the  West  Indies  and  South 
America,  which,  by  its  nature,  must  be  most  advan- 
tageous, and  therefore  artificial  stimulus  to  trade  with 
the  Philippines,  such  as  annexation  would  be  calcu- 
lated to  bring,  ought  to  be  discountenanced,  for  it 
would  turn  trade  into  unnatural  channels,  keep  it  out 
of  the  most  profitable. 

Finally  w'e  would  remark  that  we  can  find  greater 
profit  by  striving  to  remove  the  incubus  of  low  prices 
that  narrows  our  domestic  markets  than  by  seeking  to 
extend  our  markets  in  China  or  elsewhere  through  ter- 
ritorial expansion;  find  greater  profit  in  domestic  trade 
expansion  than  in  foreign  trade  expansion.  The  whole 
Chinese  market  for  foreign  produce  does  not  more 
than  equal  one-fortieth  part  of  the  market  in  our 
country.  And  our  own  market  is  little  if  any  more 
than  half  as  broad  as  it  ought  to  be  and  would  be  un- 
der just  laws  governing  the  production  and  distribu- 
tion of  wealth.  Because  the  productive  power  of  our 
people  is  seriously  curtailed  by  unjust  laws  that  de- 
prive men  of  equal  opportunities,  that  deny  to  men 
the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  their  toil,  and  so  un- 
dermine men's  energy,  paralyze  business  and  destroy 
the  opportunity  to  work,  the  consuming  capacity  of 
our  people  is  much  restricted.  By  changing  the  un- 
just for  the  just,  insuring  to  all  men  equal  opportuni- 
ties and  the  right  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  labor, 
we  can  remove  the  paralysis  of  industry  and  so  the 
restriction  on  consumption,  and  thereby  make  an  ex- 
tended market  for  products  by  the  side  of  which  any 
foreign  market  would  pale  into  insignificance.  Again, 
we  repeat,  the  true  road  to  trade  extension  is  not 
wrapt  up  with  territorial  expansion.  That  true  road 
runs  largely  in  our  own  domain,  and  when  it  runs 
abroad  it  runs  along  the  lines  of  a  customs  union  with 
all  the  Americas. 


TTMlV*^R«rfY  of  CAI.IKORNI 


!vi 


xj^y' 


UNIVERSITY   Ol-    CALIFORNIA,   LOS   ANGLLES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


^^V^  \M 


OISCHARGE 
DEC  19  137! 


Iff^ 


UFi 


]'9 


Form  L-n 


LIBRARY 


I II  III 


58  00532 


756 


UCSOUTHfR', 


0" 


01  — 

0  ^ 


i 


AA    001  193  760    4 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
THIS  BOOK  CARD 


§  1  i.^  ^ 


University  Research  Library 


X 


